Skip to main content

Full text of "The Queen's college of St. Margaret and St. Bernard in the University of Cambridge"

See other formats





President White Library. 


A, irony 


Cornell University Library 
LF235 .G77 

The Queen's college of St. Margaret and 


3 1924 030 651 925 






Cornell University 

The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 

Bnibcrsitg of ©amfiriOge 






J. H. GRAY, M.A. 





to - feg - l g V>T2 * 

K. iioi\, 

Printed by Bali.antynk, Hanson &* Co. 
At the Ballantyne Press 








This little book has laid me under great obligations. My 
heaviest debts are to four works, viz., the Rev. W. G, Searle's 
" History of the Queens' College of St. Margaret and St. 
Bernard in the University of Cambridge/' Part I. 1867, 
Part II. 1871; Messrs. Willis and Clark's " Architectural 
History of the University of Cambridge," 4 vols. 1886"; 
Mr. J. B. Mullinger's " History of the University of Cam- 
bridge," Vol. I. 1873, Vol. II. 1884 ; and the late Mr. C. H, 
Cooper's "Annals of Cambridge," 4 vols. 1842-52. Mr. 
Searle has been my chief guide as far as his work extends, 
viz., to 1662, and a very large proportion of my materials 
has been derived from him. I hope that he may be 
induced to continue his History down to the present time : 
finis coronet opus. " The Architectural History " has been 
my authority for almost all that concerns the buildings of 
the College, while to its editor, Mr. J. W. Clark, Regis- 
trary of the University, I am indebted for his kindness in 
allowing me to consult him. From Mr. Mullinger's 
volumes I have derived much information up to the year 
1625, where his work at present stops; if I may venture 
to say so, it is a work which should not be allowed 
to end there. To study the history of the University 
during the period which follows 1625 under Mr, Mullin- 
ger's able guidance would be a delightful task. " The 
Annals of Cambridge " have brought within my reach 
much that I might otherwise have sought in vain. When 
my information has been , drawn from this book, I have 
usually referred to it directly. To refer to the authority 


cited by Mr. Cooper, often some rare report or some for- 
gotten pamphlet, would be, I think, unfair to that inde- 
fatigable collector, and would be claiming for myself an 
amount of research to which I make no pretensions. Of 
other books Thomas Fuller's "Church History" and 
" History of the University of Cambridge " are perhaps 
most often cited. And it is appropriate that Fuller should 
be quoted in a book which deals with the history of his 
own College. 

I have to thank Mr. R. Bowes, of the firm of Messrs. 
Macmillan and Bowes, for permission to reproduce the 
ground-plan of the College from Messrs. Atkinson and 
Clark's "Cambridge Described and Illustrated." The 
illustrations are from photographs taken for me by Mr. 
J. Palmer Clarke. The notes on the Library I owe to 
Mr. F. G. Plaistowe, Librarian and formerly Fellow of 
Queens' College. My warmest thanks are due to Dr. Ryle, 
the President, and to Mr. Wright, the Tutor of Queens' 
College, for revising the book in proof. 

I fear that, at the best, the book is not at all worthy of 
" the royal and religious foundation," which in this present 
year has attained the venerable age of four hundred and 
fifty. The work has been a labour of love. I could wish 
that it had also been a labour of leisure. Such time as I 
had at my disposal has been most willingly given to the 
work, but a really adequate History of Queens' College, 
more than of most other Colleges, would require an amount 
of time, and also of knowledge, historical, antiquarian and 
architectural, which it is wholly out of my power to com- 
mand. I am conscious of many shortcomings ; I fear there 
may be many others of which I am ignorant, " quas aid 
incuriafudit aut humana parum cavii natura." 

J. H. GRAY. 

Qceens' College, Cambridge. 
Dec. 8, 1898. 























CAMBRIDGE) Facing page 17 









1446 (Dec. 3). First foundation of St. Bernard's College. 

1447 (Aug. 21). Second foundation of St. Bernard's College (trans- 

ferred to the present site). 
Petition of Queen Margaret to Henry VI. 

1448 (March 30). Charter for the foundation of the Queens' College 

of St. Margaret and St. Bernard. 
(April 14). Contract for wood-work of part of first Court. 
(April 15). Queen Margaret's letters founding the College. 
(April 15). The corner-stone of the Chapel laid by Sir John 


1449 (March 4). Gift of /200 by Henry VI. 

(March 6). ,Contract for wood-work to complete the first Court. 
1450. Gift of £220 by Marmaduke Lumley, Bp. of Lincoln. 
1454 (Dec. 12). The Chapel licensed by Wm. Gray, Bp. of Ely. 
1460. W. side of Cloister Court built. 
1465. Queen Elizabeth Widville becomes Patroness. 
1468. Visit of Queen Elizabeth Widville. 

1475 (March 10). The first k Statutes given_by Queen Elizabeth 

(Oct. 6). The ground W. of the river acquired from the town. 
1477 (April 10). Endowment by Richard, Duke of Gloucester. 
.1484 (July 5). Second endowment by Richard of Gloucester, now 
King — " resumed by Henry VII." 

(Nov. 4). Death of Andrew Dokett. 

The " Magnum Journale " commenced. 
1495. N. and S. sides of Cloisters built. 

1505 (April). Election of Bp. Fisher as President. 
Visit of the Lady Margaret. 

1506 (April 22). Visit of Henry VII. and the Lady Margaret ; first 

visit of Erasmus. 


1508 (June). Resignation of Bp. Fisher - 

1510. Return of Erasmus, who resides 1511-1515. 

Erection of Gallery or Ambulatory, i.e., the old Study. 

1519. Visit of Catharine of Aragon. 

1520. Visit of Cardinal Wolsey. 
1522. Visit of Henry VIII. 

1529. The Statutes confirmed by Pope Clement VII. 

1530. Sir Thomas Smith elected Fellow. 
1537 (?)The Gallery built. 

1538. The Carmelites surrender their site, which is finally acquired 

1542. Sir Thomas Smith Regius Professor of Civil Law, Vice- 

Chancellor 1543-1544. 
1546. The Commission of Henry VIII. 
1549. The Commission of Edward VI. 

1557. The Commission of Mary ; the Statutes of 1529 restored. 
1559. The Commission of Elizabeth ; the Edwardian Statutes 

1564. Visit of Queen Elizabeth. 

Erection of the building in Pump Court. 
1577. Death of Sir Thomas Smith. 
1618. Erection of Walnut-Tree Court building. 

1642. The College Plate sent to the King. 

1643. The Chapel disfigured by William Dowsing. 

1644. Edward Martin, President, and the Fellows deprived by the 

1652. Death of John Smith. 

1660. Dr. Martin restored. 

1661. Restoration of the Chapel. 
1685. Planting of Erasmus' Walk. 
1705 (April 15). Visit of Queen Anne. 

1732. Hall wainscoted and covered with flat ceiling. 
1749-50. Wooden Bridge built over river. 
1756. Erection of Essex's building. 

1772. Library enlarged. 

1773. Alterations in Chapel; flat ceiling introduced. 
1778-82. Walnut-Tree Court rebuilt after fire, 

1819-22. Oriel of Hall ornamented with arms of Foundresses, &c. 

1845. Flat ceiling of Chapel removed. 

1846. Flat ceiling of Hall removed. 


1854. Oriel of Hall restored and Windows altered. 
1858. First Victorian Statutes. 

Complete restoration of Chapel commenced. 
1861. Fireplace of Hall decorated. 
1875. E. Front restored and decorations of Hall finished. 
1882. The Second Victorian Statutes. 
1886. Friars' Buildings commenced. 

1891 (Oct. 13). New Chapel dedicated by Lord Alwyne Compton, 

Bp. of Ely. 

1892 (Sept. 27). New Organ opened. 
1896. Renovation of President's Lodge. 
1898. Friars' Gate built. 



" Quarta vides nostris quae surgunt proxima ripis 
Moenia ? Regina domus haec auctore superbit : 
Margaris, Henrici coniux, haec condidit olim, 
Dum melior fortuna fuit, necdum aspera frustra 
Aspera captivo pro coniuge bella moveret." 

Giles Fletcher, 1633. 

It is a curious fact that when the system of Non- 
Collegiate Students was inaugurated in 1869 the step 
was not a new departure, but was a reversion to the 
original type. In the early days of the University all 
students were " unattached." But before 1869 for three 
centuries every member of the University had been 
attached to some College or Hall, so that the sup- 
porters of the Non-Collegiate system were "putting 
back the clock " some three hundred years. 

The mediaeval University was not a Universitas 
studiorum, but a corporation or guild of teachers, 
possessing certain privileges and associated together 
for purposes of teaching and with the object of pre- 
serving their rights. They admitted no one as a 
member of their body without proof of his ability. 
This proof was given by public disputation, and " the 
degree " was a licence to teach. Students who desired 
to hear the teachers took up their residence in the 


University town, and attended the lectures in the 
schools. But the University as a body had no con- 
cern with the life of the students beyond the fact that 
its officers exercised a superintendence over the houses 
in which they lodged, and assumed a care over public 
morals. The taxors and the proctors 1 were the only 
University officials who were in any sense charged with 
the well-being of the students. 

This is practically the state of things which still 
exists in all Universities save Oxford and Cambridge. 
These two Universities are differentiated from all others 
by the Collegiate system. The College in its original 
form was a foundation for the lodging and mainten- 
ance of deserving students. It was in the main elee- 
mosynary in character, and was designed to provide for 
the residence of students whose lack of means would 
otherwise debar them from the advantages of the 
University. Once the system was started it speedily 
carried everything before it. The student of the College, 
well fed, well clothed, well taught and properly looked 
after, had advantages incomparably greater than the 
solitary student, who was left to riot or to starve in 
his lodgings. The Colleges gradually absorbed all the 
students of the University, although Hostels existed 
in considerable numbers as late as the middle of the 
sixteenth century ; indeed, Dr. Caius laments as an evil 
effect of the Reformation the fact that the Hostels had 
become depleted and were gradually being closed or 
swallowed up in the Colleges. In the end the College 

1 A good account of the Proctors and Taxors will be found in 
Mr. S. M. Leathes' Introduction to " Grace Book A " (Cambridge 


prevailed, every official of the University was a member 
of a College, and the University itself an aggregate of 

This conception of the University as a literary 
republic, of which the Colleges are, so to speak, the 
constituent states, is peculiar to the two great English 
Universities. How unintelligible it is to the foreign 
mind will be obvious to any one who has tried to ex- 
plain it to some " distinguished stranger." A University 
requires as its local habitation a senate-house, a library, 
and schools or lecture-rooms. These the University of 
Cambridge possesses, but they constitute a very small 
part of the buildings shown to the stranger who is 
paying a visit to the University. There is a story of 
some learned foreigners who were much perplexed by 
this anomaly, as it appeared to them. They were taken 
from building to building and College to College, but 
always reverted to the question, " But where is the Uni- 
versity?" Again and again the question came up: 
" Oh, yes ! I understand: this is Trinity College, this is 
St. John's College,'" or whatever it might be; " but where 
is the University? " At last, when their guides were in 
despair of making themselves understood, the then 
Secretary of the Local Examinations, without whose aid 
few things were attempted in Cambridge, opportunely 
issued from the Library, and one of the conductors 
pointed to him in triumph, " There is the University." 
The foreigners were silenced : whether they were satisfied 
or not the story does not explain. 

The Collegiate system is due in Oxford to Walter de 
Merton (1265 a.d.). In Cambridge it is due to Hugh 
de Balsham, the founder of Peterhouse (1284 a.d.), who 


followed closely the statutes drawn up by Walter de 
Merton for his College. How speedily the conception 
spread is seen from the dates of the existing Colleges. 
Within little more than half a century after the 
foundation of Peterhouse we have Clare (1326), Pem- 
broke (1347), Gonville and Caius (1348), Trinity Hall 
(1350), and Corpus Christi (1352). And the number 
might be increased if we took into account such 
foundations as those of Michael-House (1324), and 
King's Hall (1337), which were afterwards absorbed 
into the great foundation of Trinity College. 

For a time there was a cessation of activity. Then 
the zeal for founding broke out again, and, practically 
within little more than half a century, no fewer than 
six of the existing Cambridge Colleges sprang into 
being. They are King's College (1441), Queens' (1448), 
St. Catharine's (1473), Jesus (1496), and the two founda- 
tions of the Lady Margaret, viz., Christ's (1505) and 
St. John's (1511). It is with the second College in this 
second group that we are concerned. 

The true founder of Queens' College was Andrew 
Dokett. 1 In the words of the Commemoration-Service : 

"First of all I must mention with most grateful 
memory Andrew Dokett, Rector of St. Botolph's, Prin- 
cipal of St. Bernard's Hostel and our first President, to 
whom is due the merit of the design of founding the 
College, and to whose zeal, ability, liberality and prudence 

1 Or perhaps more correctly Doket. In " Grace Book A," p. 9, the 
name is spelt Doget. Fuller (see p. 11) gives Ducket, which 
approximates to the modern spelling. Sir George Duckett has 
recently presented to the College the seal used by his ancestor 
Andrew Dokett. 


the successful establishment of this Foundation is mainly 
to be attributed." 

It is tantalising that we are able to glean but little about 
the early life of this remarkable man. He was a Friar 
(Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," v. 33). He appears as Princi- 
pal of St. Bernard's Hostel, which was one of the many 
lodging-houses for non-collegiate students then existing 
in Cambridge. St. Bernard's Hostel was situated in 
Trumpington Street, on the north side of St. Botolph's 
churchyard, and adjoining Benet, now Corpus Christi, 
College, by which it was subsequently absorbed. The 
advowson of St. Botolph's at that time belonged to 
Corpus Christi College, and Andrew Dokett was pre- 
sented to the living by that society before the year 1439, 
when his name appears as Vicar of St. Botolph's. He 
became Rector October 21, 1444, when the great tithes 
were restored to the living by Corpus Christi College 
(Lamb, " Hist, of C. C. C," p. 305 ; Searle, p. 49). He 
was subsequently made a Prebendary of the free chapel 
of St. Stephen (founded by Edward III. 1347) within 
the Palace of Westminster, but exchanged this prefer- 
ment in 1479 with Dr. Walter Oudeby, Provost of the 
College of Cotterstoke or Cotterstock, near Oundle, in 
the county of Northampton. Andrew Dokett also 
became Prebendary of Ruiton in the Church of Lich- 
field, July 22, 1467. This he exchanged in 1470 for 
the Chancellorship of the same church, an office which 
he resigned July 6, 1476. The rectory of St. Botolph's 
he resigned in 1470. He lived until November 4, 1484. 
Andrew Dokett obtained from King Henry VI., on 
December 3, 1446, a charter of incorporation for a Col- 
lege under the title of the College of St. Bernard. The 


site on which it was intended to place this building lies 
to the east of the present College. It was a strip of ground 
extending from Trumpington Street on the east to 
Milne Street, the present Queens' Lane, on the west. 
The ground did not extend as far south as Smallbridges 
Street, now Silver Street. Then some dwelling-houses lay- 
between the site and this street, and on the north were 
other dwelling-houses, which with the site itself after- 
wards became the property of St. Catharine's College. 

The original Society consisted of the President and 
four Fellows. They seem to have found the chosen 
site unsuitable for their purpose, and by the King's per- 
mission returned the charter, praying that in its stead 
he would accept a new piece of ground near the river, 
which, together with four tenements acquired by them, 
they made over to the King. The greater part of this 
new site was a messuage and garden conveyed to Dokett, 
July 24, 1447, by John Morys of Trumpington and 
Elizabeth his wife. This ground extended from Milne 
Street on the east to the river on the west, and the four 
tenements with their gardens, which formed its south- 
west corner, belonged conjointly to John Morys and 
John Battisford of Chesterton. These were acquired 
July 26, 1447, and were conveyed to the King by the 
same deed. The present site also includes a piece of 
ground which then belonged to Corpus Christi College, 
a house, the property of Thomas Forster, and the 
corner-house of John Morys, which were shortly after- 
wards acquired by the College. 

In the deed of surrender they pray for a new charter 
refounding the College on this site next to the Car- 
melite Friars, as a site more favourable to the prospects 


of the foundation, and offering more scope for its 
expansion. This is clear from the words of the King's 
charter : " pro placabiliori situ ac elargatiane edificiorum 
et habitatkmis huiusmodi collegii? 

On Aug. 21, 1447, the King acceded to the request of 
the Society, revoked the former charter, and refounded 
the College of St. Bernard on the new site. The 
charter gives the names of the President and the first 
four Fellows, "John Lawe, Alexander Folkelowe, 
Thomas Haywode, and John Carewey, clerks,'" and the 
statutes are to be made by John Somerset, Chancellor 
of the Exchequer, Richard [Cawedray], Peter [Hirford], 
John Sperhauk, Hugh [Damlet], and Thomas Boleyn. 
The charter is quoted in full, Searle, pp. 8-15. Ap- 
pended to the charter is the Great Seal of England. 

At this juncture Margaret of Anjou, the Queen of 
Henry VI., petitioned the King to allow her to found 
and name the College. The document is preserved 
among the College muniments. It runs as follows: 

" Margaret, 
" R. H. 
" To the King my souverain lord. 

" Besecheth mekely Margaret quene of England youre 
humble wif, Forasmuche as youre moost noble grace hath 
newely ordeined and stablisshed a collage of seint 
Bernard in the Universite of Cambrigge with multitude of 
grete and faire privilages perpetuelly appartenyng unto 
the same, as in your lettres patentes therupon made more 
plainly hit appereth, In the whiche universite is no collage 
founded by eny quene of England hidertoward, Plese hit 
therfore unto your highnease to yeve and graimte unto 
your seide humble wif the fondacoh and determinacoh of 


the seid collage to be called and named the Quenes 
collage of sainte Margarete and saint Bernard, or ellis of 
sainte Margarete vergine and martir and saint Bernard 
confessour, and therupon for ful evidence thereof to have 
licence and pouoir to ley the furst stone in her owne 
persone or ellis by other depute of her assignement, so 
that beside the mooste noble and glorieus collage roial of 
our Lady and saint Nicholas founded by your highnesse 
may be founded and stablisshed the seid so called Quenes 
collage to conservation of oure feith and augmentation of 
pure clergie, namly of the imparesse [empress] of alle 
sciences and facultees theologie. . to the ende there accus- 
tumed of plain lecture and exposicoh botraced [buttressed] 
with docteurs sentence autentiq' performed daily twyes by 
two docteurs notable and wel avised upon the bible afore- 
none and maistre of the sentences afternoone to the 
publique audience of alle men frely, bothe seculiers and 
religieus, to the magnificence of denominacon of suche a 
Quenes collage and to laud and honneure of sexe feme- 
nine, like as two noble and devoute contesses of Pembroke 
and of Clare founded two collages in the same universite 
called Pembroke hall and Clare hall, the wiche are of 
grete reputation for good and worshipful clerkis, that by 
grete multitude have be bredde and brought forth in 
theym, And of youre more ample grace to graunte that 
all privileges immunitees profites and comodities con- 
teyned in the lettres patentes above reherced may stonde 
in theire strength and pouoir after forme and effect of the 
conteine in theym. And she shal ever preye God for 

The date of this petition is between August 21, 1447, 
and March 30, 1448. The Queen, as a royal personage, 
puts her name at the top, and the letters R. H. are the 


King's sign-manual, by which he countersigned it on 
returning it to the Queen granted. 

The motives which induced the young Queen — she 
was only eighteen — to become the patroness of the 
College are thus given by Thomas Fuller (" Univ. of 
Camb.," v. 31) : 

"As Miltiades' trophy in Athens would not suffer 
Themistocles to sleep, so this Queen beholding her 
husband's bounty in building King's College was restless 
in herself with holy emulation until she had produced 
something of the like nature, a strife wherein wives 
without breach of duty may contend with their husbands 
which should exceed in pious performances." 

And, so far as the Queen was concerned, we need not 
doubt that the explanation is true. Margaret was 
brilliant and ambitious, her high abilities and her great 
position had already made her, rather than her gentle 
consort, the leading personage in the realm. She would 
naturally be eager to associate her name with such a 
work. Nor is it without significance that Cardinal 
Beaufort, who had brought about her marriage with the 
King, appears as one of the earliest benefactors of the 
College. We may infer that he would readily encour- 
age his royal mistress to accept the position offered her. 
At the same time we can hardly doubt that the far- 
sighted Dokett had found reason to seek the Queen's 
patronage for his foundation. "Whether Andrew 
Dokett " (says Mr. Searle, p. 16), " finding the King too 
busy with affairs of state and the management of his 
own two foundations, King's College and Eton College, 
contrived to engage the Queen's interest in a similar 


work, there is no evidence to show. 1 '' But it is not a 
very hazardous guess that the Queen's patronage was 
due as much to Dokett's prudence as to her own 

And so St. Bernard's College disappeared. The 
Queen became patroness, the charter was returned to the 
King a second time to be revoked, with a petition that 
the King would grant the lands conveyed by the charter 
to Queen Margaret with a licence to found " another 
College in honour of the glorious virgin St. Margaret 
and of St. Bernard, on the ground late of John Morys 
of Trumpington, Esquire." In accordance with these 
petitions, letters patent under the Great Seal were 
issued March 30, 1448, granting to Queen Margaret 
the lands of St. Bernard's College and licence to found 
a College. 1 In the exercise of the power thus given 
her, the Queen, by a document dated April 15, 1448, 
reciting the King's licence of March 30, and repeating 
its provisions in her own name, proceeds, " in the name 
of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the Father, Son 
and Holy Ghost, and of the glorious virgin Mary and 
of saint Margaret and saint Bernard, by power and 
authority of the King's licence given and granted us in 
this matter by the letters specified above," to found a 
College for one President and four Fellows, "to the 
praise, glory and honour of Almighty God," by the 
name of the Queen's College of St. Margaret and St. 
Bernard {Collegium Regmale Sancte Margarete et 
Sancti Bernardi). 

In these two charters of Henry and Margaret the 
President and Fellows are the same as in the charter for 
1 The charter is transcribed by Mr. Searle, pp. 18-26. 


St. Bernard's College. " They were to form a corpora- 
tion able to sue and to be sued, with a common seal and 
having licence to hold property in mortmain to the 
amount of i?200 a year " (Searle, p. 28). The statutes 
were to be framed by William Booth, Bishop of Lich- 
field and Coventry, John Somerset, Richard Cawedray, 
Peter Hirford, Hugh Damlet, Thomas Boleyn, and 
William Millington, clerks. Mr. Searle collects what 
is known about these persons (pp. 82-36). But there 
is no evidence that any statutes were framed for the 
College during the reign of Henry VI. Probably the 
outbreak of the Wars of the Roses rudely interrupted 
such works of peace. In the quaint words of Fuller 
("Univ. of Camb., ,, v. 33): 

"The child thus come to the birth, there was no 
strength to bring forth, had not the skill of the midwife 
supplied the want of strength in the mother. I mean 
Andrew Ducket [Dokett], for fourty years first Master 
of this House, formerly a Fryer, Rector of S. Buttolph's 
in Cambridge, Principale of St. Bernard's Hostel, who 
gathered much money from well-disposed people, to 
finish this Colledge, and accounted by some, though not 
by his purse by his prayers, the Founder thereof. A good 
and discreet man, who with no sordid but prudentiall com- 
plyance so poised himself in those dangerous times betwixt 
the successive Kings of Lancaster and York, that he pro- 
cured the favour of both, and so prevailed with Queen 
Elizabeth, wife to King Edward the fourth, that she 
perfected what her professed enemy had begun. A good- 
natur'd Lady, whose estate (whilest a widow) being 
sequestred for the delinquency of her husband (things, 
though not words, then in fashion) made her more 
merciful to the miseries of others." 


It will be in keeping with Fuller's description of 
Elizabeth Widville as " a good-natur'd Lady," if we 
credit her with other motives than that of outdoing 
what her predecessor had done, when she became the 
patroness of the College. Elizabeth herself had strongly 
sympathised with the Lancastrian party. She had been 
a lady-in-waiting to Margaret of Anjou, and her 
husband had fallen in battle for the Lancastrian cause. 
When Margaret was finally defeated, Elizabeth miti- 
gated the rigour of her imprisonment. We may 
suppose then that she was rather completing the work 
of her mistress than trying to supersede a rival. In 
Mr. Mullinger's words (" Univ. of Camb., 11 i. p. 316) : 

" It is not improbable that sympathy with her former 
mistress, then passing her days in retirement in Anjou, 
may have prompted her to accede to the prayer of 
Andrew Dokett, the first President of the Society, and to 
take the new foundation, henceforth written Queens' 
College, under her protection." 

The present position of the apostrophe after the ' s ' 
not inadequately corresponds to the facts of the case. 
It gives Queen Elizabeth due credit without derogating 
from the claims of Queen Margaret. History may 
recognise the claims of both without disparaging the 
claims of either. We may think of Elizabeth as 
loyally following in the footsteps of the Queen whom 
she had known and served before the strange chances 
of destiny had brought her the prospect of a crown. 

"The example of Queen Margaret was followed by 
Elizabeth, Queen Consort of Edward IV., after the 
accession of the House of York. In the year 1465 she 


became patroness of the College, and in the year 1475 
she gave us our first statutes, in which she is declared to 
be ' the true Foundress.' " (Commemoration Service.) 

The ground conveyed by Dokett to the Crown forms 
not much more than a third of the site upon which the 
College stands. It may be convenient here to complete 
the history of the steps by which the whole property 
was acquired. The northern portion of the site, on 
which the Walnut Tree Buildings, the Friars' Buildings 
and the New Chapel now stand, as well as the ground 
occupied by the President's Garden and the Fellows' 
Bowling-Green, belonged to the Carmelites, or White 
Friars, who had been located first at Chesterton, then 
at Newnham, finally, since 1292, in the parish of 
St. John, Milne Street. Between the College property and 
the\property of the Carmelites there was a ditch and a 
wall, and a lane extended from Milne Street in the direc- 
tion of the river. The wall, with the ground on which 
it stood, was sold by the Friars to the College on 
February 12, 1537, for ^1 3s. 4d. Eighteen months 
later (August 8, 1538), when the dissolution of the 
religious houses was imminent, "perhaps under the 
impression that better terms would be obtainable 
from the College than from the Crown " (Willis and 
Clark, ii. p. 3, q.v.), the Carmelites surrendered their 
property to the President (Dr. Mey) and Fellows of 
Queens' College. It will be noted that this surrender 
takes place between the Act of 1536, which suppressed 
the smaller houses, and the Act of 1539, which vested in 
the King all such monasteries as had been or should be 
afterwards surrendered. " The Pilgrimage of Grace " 


had been put down, and a new visitation appointed, by 
which the larger monasteries were being coerced or 
bribed into surrender to the Crown. This deed sets 
forth that 

" We George Legat, prior of the howse of friers Carmelites 
in Cambridge, commonlie called the White Friers, and the 
covent of the same howse . . . gladly ffrely and willynglie 
do give and graunt and surrender in to the hands of the 
right worshipfull Mr. William Mey, docf. in law civill 
... all that owr howse and grownd called the White 
friers in Cambridge, with all and singular the appertin- 
ences therof and themnto belonging. And we also by 
these presents do testifie that, when we shal be required 
therunto, we shall depart from the seid howse and grownd 
and give place unto them, and also shal be redie at all 
tymes to make writyngs, and seale to all such wrytyngs 
as shal be devised by ther learned cownsell to he in us for 
the confirmation and assuraunce of this owr gift and dede 
towards them : so that this owr fact and dede be nothyng 
preiudiciall, but alowed and approved of and by owr most 
dred and soueraigne lord the Kyng, In whose graces 
power and pleasure, beyng the supreme hed of this 
catholik churche of Englond, we confesse and acknow- 
ledge that it is to alowe or disalowe this owr fact or 

However, the transaction was not " alowed and approved 
of and by owr most dred and soueraigne lord the Kyno-," 
for a royal commission was issued on August 17, 1538 
to Dr. Daye, Provost of King's College, Dr. Mey, Presi- 
dent, and two of the Fellows of Queens' College, directing 
them that 


"repayring unto the said howse [of the White Friars] 
immedyately uppon the receipt hereof, ye shal receve of 
the priour ther, in our name and to our use, such sufficient 
writing under the convent seale of the said howse, as by 
your discretion shal be thought mete and convenyent for 
the surrendre of the same ; The which surrendre so made, 
we wooll that ye shal take possession of the said howse, 
and soo to kepe the same to our use tyll further know- 
leage of our pleasour, taking a true and perfite Inventory 
of all the goodes of the saide howse, the which our 
pleasour is ye shall send unto us incontynently, to thentent 
our further mynde may theruppon be declared unto you 
with more speed and celeritie." 

These instructions were obeyed. The deed of sur- 
render was made August 28th, an inventory of the 
Friars' goods taken September 6. On November 28, 
1541, Dr. Mey purchased from the King's officers the 
stone, slate, tile, timber, iron and glass which had 
belonged to the Carmelites for -£%0. The site was 
granted by the King to John Eyre of Bury, Sep- 
tember 12, 1544, who sold it to Dr. Mey, and it was 
transferred to the College November 30, 1544. 

This brought into the possession of Queens' College 
the whole property on the east side of the river. The 
ground on the west side, then an island, had been 
acquired previous to this date. Letters patent were 
sent on behalf of the College to the mayor, bailiffs and 
commonalty of the town of Cambridge by King 
Edward IV.j Queen Elizabeth, and their son Prince 
Edward in 1475. On October 6 in that year, "on 
contemplation of the honourable letters of our most 
dread lord the King, the most excellent Princess our 


lady the Queen and the illustrious and most mighty 
Prince, 11 the borough, in consideration of 40 marks, 
granted to Andrew Dokett, the President, and the 
Fellows and their successors for ever this land on the 
west side of the river. It is described as 

" a parcel of the common land or soil of the town, 
between the common river running down from the King's 
Mill and the Bishop's Mill on the east, and the river 
running down from Newnham Mill on the west, and from 
divers bounds called 'Stakis' placed on the north part 
of the street leading from the town of Cambridge to 
Newnham, between the two bridges called the Smale 
Brigges, distant from the said street on the east part 
28 ft. and towards the west 63 ft." 

The College undertook to lengthen " the Smale Brigge 
next the College by twelve feet," and to widen " the river 
on the east of the said soil " to the breadth of fifty-one 
feet. Leave was likewise given the College to throw a 
bridge over the river on the east part of the soil, so 
that the arch of such bridge stretched as far as the arch 
of the bridge of King's College. The condition of the 
island and the position of the streams that surrounded 
it are shown in Hammond's Map of Cambridge, 1592. 
A plan reduced from this map is given by Willis and 
Clark, ii. p. 5. 

We may now proceed to trace the history of the 
buildings erected on the east side of the river. 

From Atkinson and] 


[Clark's "Cambridge 



" Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy 
nursing mothers." 

Queen Margaret's charter of foundation was dated 
April 15, 1448. It had heen her intention to lay the 
first stone in person, but, as she was unable to do this, 
perhaps on account of the plague then prevalent in 
Cambridge, she commissioned Sir John Wenlock, her 
chamberlain, to act for her. The stone was laid on the 
very day on which the charter was given. 

" Sir John Wenlock Knight laid the first stone of this 
Colledge in the East end and South side of the Chappel, 
in the name of Queen Margaret, Aprill 15, 1448, who 
caused this inscription to be engraved thereon : ' Erit 
DomiruB Nostras Reginas Margaretce Dominus in refugium, et 
lapis iste in signum.' The Lord shall be for a refuge to 
the Lady Margaret, and this stone for a signe. Indeed, 
poor Queen, soon after she needed a sanctuary to shelter 
herself when beaten in battel,, and the aforesaid (since 
Lord Wenlock) slain at Teuksbury." 

So, characteristically, Fuller (" Univ. of Camb.," v. 32). 
But according to a brief MS. history of the foundation 
of the College, written about 1470, the inscription borne 



by the stone was " Erit domine nostre Regime 
Margarete dommivm in refugiwm et lapis iste in 
signum? meaning probably, as Mr. Searle suggests 
(p. 44), " The power of our Lady Queen Margaret shall 
be our refuge and this stone (laid in her name) the sign 
of her protection." 

By this time the Collegiate plan had been fully 
developed. It followed the lines not of a monastery, 
but of the normal type of large country-house. In 
the case of Queens 1 College this resemblance to the 
accepted type of country-house is found both in the 
original buildings and in the additions soon afterwards 
made to them. The result is that the general plan of 
Queens' College bears a most striking likeness to the 
plan of a house such as Haddon Hall. This has been 
fully worked out, Willis and Clark, iii. Appendix. 

Two conntracts for the earliest buildings are still 
extant. The first of these contracts, dated April 14, 
1448, the day before the laying of the stone, between 
the President and Fellows of the College on the one 
part, and John Veyse, draper, and Thomas Sturgeon, 
carpenter, of Elesnam (Elsenham), Essex, on the other 
part, is a contract binding these latter to put up the 
woodwork of part of the first Court for the sum of 
£100, to be paid in three instalments. They are to 
provide all the timber needful for the roof, the " midel- 
walles " (partitions), stairs and floors, and this timber is 
to be oak. The house is to be 240 ft. long and 20 ft. 
broad (Searle, pp. 38, 39). The building here pro- 
vided for comprised the whole of the north and east 
and the eastern half of the south side of the first Court 
—i.e., the Library, the Chapel, the Great Gate and 


three staircases containing rooms for Fellows and 
students. The length of these buildings, excluding the 
Gate, is rather more than 240 ft. The point on the 
south side where this work ended is still plainly dis- 
cernible in the brickwork both inside the front Court and 
in Silver Street. As the last instalment of the money was 
to be paid to the contractors on Michaelmas day, it is 
clear that the building was expected to be finished by that 
date, and the work was certainly completed before the 
spring of the folio wing year. OnMarch 4, 1449, Henry VI. 
contributed i?200 towards the cost of this building. 

" It is shewed unto us by our welbeloved the President 
and Felowes of the College of Saint Margarete and Saint 
Bernard in our universite of Cambrigge, which is of the 
foundation of our most dere and best beloved wyfe the 
Quene, how that, for as much as the seid president and 
felowes have not wherwith to edifie the seid College in 
housing and other necessaries but only of almesse of 
Cristes devout people therto putting theire hands and 
dedes meritorye, nor that the seid edification is not to be 
perfourmed at any wise withoute that the supportation of 
our moste noble and benygne grace be shedded unto 
them in this partie — we have yeven them CO'." 

The second contract, between the same parties, dated 
March 6, 1449, binds Veyse and Sturgeon to find all 
the timber for the roof of the Hall for the sum of i?80 
(Searle, pp. 39-41). The money is to be paid " the fest 
of the nativite of our Lord next followyng. 1 ' The Hall 
is to be 50 ft. long and 22 ft. broad. The contract 
covers also " the rofes of botry [buttery] pantry and 
kechen with the fibres to them longyng with all the 


midil walles and greses [stairs] to the said houses per- 
teynyng." " The wich howses extenden in lenketh from 
the hall into the hei way with a return of the chambers 
ich of ham conteyning in lenketh xxv foote and in 
brede xx." This "return of the chambers'" is the 
western portion of the south side of the Court. 
It is further stipulated that all the timber "that 
shall nede to the seides howses shall accord wyth the i i 
other syde the wich is now redy framed next to the 
freres " — i.e., that the south side shall correspond with 
the north side, which lay nearest to the property of the 
Carmelites, had been included in the former contract 
and was already built. 

These indentures for the woodwork are the only 
records remaining for the building of the front Court. 
This Court (99 ft. E. to W., by 84 ft. N. to S.) was 
completed before the Wars of the Roses broke out. 

'■' It is of excellent architecture, in red brick, with a 
noble gateway, flanked by octagonal turrets, and it has a 
square tower at each external angle of the court. The 
effect of these towers is greatly increased by the care with 
which they are diminished upwards. The employment of 
the towers is a peculiarity which offers presumptive 
evidence that the architect of the other two royal colleges 
of was King's and Eton employed to design the buildings 
of this smaller foundation" (Willis and Clark, ii. p. 11). 

From the imperishable nature of the materials used 
this Court remains almost as it was when it was first 
built. The only changes are that the cusps have been 
scraped from the windows, that battlements have been 
substituted for the eaves, which still existed at the time 


when Loggan's print was made — about 1688 — and that 
a wooden belfry has been erected above the entrance to 
the Chapel. "It is," says Mr. J. W. Clark, "the 
earliest remaining quadrangle in, Cambridge that can 
claim attention for real architectural beauty and fitness 
of design.'" By an arrangement common in Collegiate 
buildings, the Chapel and Library occupied the north 
side of the Court, and the Hall, Buttery and Kitchen 
the west side, while the remaining sides contained 
rooms for the members of the College. The tower 
above the gateway formed the Treasury. The President 
was housed in the N.W. corner between the Library 
and the Hall. From the gable wall which finished the 
N. side of the building it appears that the original 
building did not include the Combination Room nor 
the President's Chamber over it. Otherwise the same 
roof would have been continued. As it is, there is a 
small space at the angle of the Court, in which there is 
a window from the Combination Room and another over 
it from the President's Lodgings. The buildings of this 
Court, except the Chapel and the Hall, are in two storeys 
with attics. 

The Society must have been greatly helped in 
these buildings by a munificent gift, of £98,0 from 
Marmaduke Lumley (Chancellor of the University 
1427-28, Master of Trinity Hall, 1429, Bishop of 
Carlisle, 1429-50). Bishop Lumley was translated 
from .Carlisle to Lincoln 1450 and died soon afterwards. 
If he is correctly described as " Lincoln, episcopus, 11 his 
benefaction must belong to the year 1450. 

The Chapel, which had a vestry in the N.E. corner 
and a tower in the N.W. corner, was licensed for Divine 


Service by William Gray, Bishop of Ely, Dec. 12, 1454. 
He gives authority for the celebration of the divine 
offices " in Chapels and Oratories suitable and seemly, 
duly arranged for divine worship, situated within the 
College and the Hostel of St. Bernard,''' reserving the 
customary rights of the parish churches (Searle, p. 45, 
Cooper, " Ann.," i. p. 206). The authorities of a College 
were anxious to have a Chapel of their own as soon as 
it was possible : otherwise it was necessary that the 
younger students should be constantly escorted to the 
parish church. When a College was provided with its 
own Chapel, its younger members at this date seldom 
quitted the precincts, save when they were conducted by 
their seniors to attend the Schools. 

The first addition made to the original buildings 
was the range along the river-front, which now forms 
the west side of the Cloister Court. The date of this 
building, which contained students' chambers, is about 
1460. The ground floor is partly occupied by a cloister- 
walk 6 ft. wide. "This cloister consists of plain 
four-centered arches of brickwork, of three chamfered 
orders. The arches are fenced below by a low side-wall, 
with the exception of the central one, which is open to 
the grass " (Willis and Clark, ii. p. 14). The windows 
in this building correspond in style with those in the front 
Court, and this edifice with its cloister was completed 
before the side cloisters N. and S. were built. An 
examination of the cloisters makes this plain. The last 
arch of the cloisters on these two sides merely abuts 
against the arch of the W. building, and though the 
arcades N. and S. are of the same form as those on the 
W. side, they are in two orders only of chamfered bricks, 


instead of in three like the W. side. It is conjectured 
that these two sides were added in 1495. There is no 
mention of a cloister (claustrvm) in the accounts 1484- 
1494, but after that date the word is of frequent 
occurrence. And large quantities of lime and sand are 
bought for "the cloister" at this time ("Magn. Journ.," i. 
92). The Cloister Court thus completed is irregular in 
shape. The west side measures 75 ft. 9 in., the east 
side 66 ft., the north side 102 ft. 4 in., and the south 
side 79 ft. The Hall and Combination Room occupy 
the east side. The building on the west side was 
originally some 130 ft. in length, but some 25 ft. of the 
work was pulled down in 1756 to make way for Essex's 
building (see chap. ix.). This was as far as the buildings 
had been carried at the time of Erasmus' residence, 
1511-15. The turret at the S.W. angle of the ,main 
building, which was included in the rooms occupied by the 
great scholar, is still commonly spoken of as Erasmus 1 
tower. Loggan's view shows that the centre of the 
Cloister Court was originally a garden. One tree still 
remains in his time. There was a door leading from 
this Court into the lane between the College and the 
Carmelites. A key " for ye gate by ye Cloisters into ye 
freares " is mentioned several times in the accounts. 



" High potentates, and dames of royal birth 
And mitred fathers in long order go : 

* * * * 

And Anjou's heroine, and the paler rose, 

The rival of her crown and of her woes." — T. Gray. 

Presidents : Andrew Dokett, 1448-1484 ; Thomas Wilkynson, 

It would appear that Andrew Dokett kept the accounts 
of his College himself. The Bursar's book known as 
the " Magnum Journale " commences only after his death. 
Hence, at this time, when the growth of the College 
was marvellously rapid, the materials for its history are 
comparatively scanty. The record of these early days 
is little more than a recital of the benefactions by which 
the College was gradually established and enriched. To 
enter into the details of these gifts is beyond the scope 
of the present work. And to do so is the less necessary, 
in that Mr. Searle has gleaned all the information that 
can be obtained and embodied it in his first volume 
(p. 60 ff). Here we can only note very summarily the 
most important benefactors, with some few particulars 
where they are specially interesting. 

To the personal interest of Queen Margaret in her 

From a photograph by] 

[J. Palmer Clarke, Cambridge 



College may be ascribed the King's gift of ,£200 already 
mentioned. The Queen was an open-handed princess, 
and the fact that no record remains of any direct bene- 
faction from her is probably to be explained by a 
cautious fear of making a parade of her patronage, when 
the tide of civil war flowed strongly in favour of the 
House of York. Many of Queen Margaret's friends 
appear among the earliest benefactors of the Society, 
and there can be no doubt that her influence was freely 
used in favour of the new College. As instances of 
persons closely connected with the Queen, who promoted 
the establishment of the College, may be mentioned 
Sir John Beaumont, Lord of Bardolf, her steward, Sir 
John Wenlock, her chamberlain, and Lady Margery 
Roos, a lady of the bedchamber, a munificent benefac- 
tress. Passing by the benefactions of Thomas Barrie, 
citizen of London (,£100 in 1454), Richard Wither- 
merch, gentleman (40 marks, 1458), William Lasby, 
clerk, Richard Andrewe or Spycer, burgess of Cam- 
bridge (who gave houses, &c, in the town, 1459, 
Cooper, " Ann.," i. p. 210), William Syday and John 
Marke, 1470, we may note that in 1459 the patronage 
of St. Botolph's Church was acquired by Queens' Col- 
lege for the sum of 80 marks from Corpus Christi 
College, who sold at the same time a small piece of 
ground in Smale Brigges Street, on which Andrew 
Dokett's almshouses first stood (Searle, pp. 66-68). 

Edward IV. married Elizabeth Widville May 1, 1464. 
The new Queen, the eldest daughter of Sir Richard 
Widville and Jacquetta, duchess dowager of Bedford, 
had married Sir John Grey, afterwards Lord Ferrers of 
Groby, in 1453. An old manuscript at Drummond 


Castle preserves some delightful extracts from her diary 
(see Church Times, Feb. 11, 1898), recording Elizabeth's 
meeting with her future husband. 

"Ten o'clock. Went to dinner. John Grey, a most 
comely youth ; but what is that to me ? . . . John ate but 
little and stole many tender looks at me — said, women 
would never be handsome in his opinion, who were not 
good-tempered. I hope my temper is not bad, nobody 
finds fault with it but Roger, and he is the most disorderly 
man in the family. John Grey likes good teeth. My 
teeth are of a pretty good colour. I think my hair is as 
black as jet ; and John, if I mistake not, is of the same 
opinion. Eleven o'clock. Rose from the table : the com- 
pany all desirous of walking in the fields. John Grey 
would lift me over every stile, and twice squeezed my 
hand with great vehemence. I cannot say I should have 
any objection to John Grey ; he plays at prison-bars as 
well as any of the country gentlemen : is remarkably 
dutiful to his parents, my lord and lady; and never 
misses church on Sundays. . . . Nine o'clock. The com- 
pany fast asleep — these late hours very disagreeable. 
Said my prayers a second time — John Grey disturbed my 
thoughts too much the first time. Fell asleep and dreamed 
of John Grey." 

Who could doubt the happiness of the marriage after 
this ? " Bona cum bona nubet alite virgo? But 
Elizabeth's words, " My hair is as black as jet," are 
somewhat disconcerting. Her pictures represent her as 
fair-haired, in contrast to the dark-haired Margaret of 
Anjou. And Hall's general description of her in his 
chronicle quite agrees with her portraits. 


" She was a woman more of formal countenance than of 
excellent beauty, but yet of such beauty and favour, with 
her sober demeanour, lovely looking and feminine smiling 
(neither too wanton nor too humble), beside her tongue so 
eloquent and her wit so pregnant." 

However, this is a digression. Elizabeth had been a 
maid of honour to Queen Margaret. She received from 
the Queen, on her marriage, a portion of £200, and 
continued to attend as one of the ladies of the bed- 
chamber. Her husband commanded the Lancastrian 
horse at the second battle of St. Albans, Feb. 17, 1461, 
but was wounded, and died of his wounds Feb. 28. 
Elizabeth then lived in retirement at Grafton. But 
King Edward, who was negotiating at the time for the 
hand of Bona, daughter of Louis of Savoy, met her : 
" captajferwm captorem cepit" and the Yorkist King took 
the Lancastrian lady as his Queen. 

It may be assumed that Elizabeth's personal con- 
nexion with Queen Margaret had made her fully 
acquainted with the foundation of Queens' College, and 
that not improbably she knew Andrew Dokett. At all 
events, when it was suggested to her that she should 
complete her predecessor's work, she willingly under- 
took the task. The MS. account of the foundation of 
the College already quoted gives a statement of the 
facts, which is probably more correct than the Latin in 
which it is contained. 

" But because by the opposition of fortune and by the 

leave of God, the Queen in question [Margaret] so lost her 

high position that she could not finish what she had 

egun, hence Elizabeth, the Queen and wife of the most 


illustrious King Edward IV., as the true foundress by light of 
succession, brought to completion what her predecessor had 
commenced but had not finished, put forth statutes and 
obtained many privileges from the King, procurante semper 
eodem presidente Andrea Dokett, cuius iam opera manifesta 
sunt" (see Searle, pp. 71, 72). 

The activity of Dokett in obtaining the Queen's 
patronage is here plainly shown, and the words "as 
the true foundress by right of succession " are highly sig- 
nificant, as embodying a view of Elizabeth's position 
which was entertained both by the Queen and by her 
royal husband, and, indeed, if we are not mistaken, by 
the succeeding monarch, Richard III. For in King 
Edward's letters, March 5, 1473, granting permission 
to the Lady Joan Burgh to endow Queens' College, the 
College is described " as existing by the patronage of 
Elizabeth, Queen of England, our beloved consort"; 
and in Richard III.'s licence to the College, March 25, 
1484, the wording runs, "Be it known to all that of 
our special grace (to the praise, glory and honour of 
Almighty God and of the most blessed and immaculate 
Virgin Mary, mother of Christ, and of saints Margaret 
Virgin and Bernard Confessor, besides to the ' singular 
contemplation 1 (ad smgularem contetnplationem) of 
Anne Queen of England, our most dearly loved consort, 
we have granted and given licence, &c, ... to 
the President and Fellows of the Queens' College of 
saint Margaret and saint Bernard in our University 
of Cambridge, which exists by the foundation and 
patronage of our aforesaid consort," as if Anne also had 
" by right of succession " inherited the position of the 
two preceding Queens. It would be interesting to know 


whether Andrew Dokett had succeeded in inculcating 
this most convenient view of the case, that the College 
was not so much the personal foundation of Queen 
Margaret as the special object of patronage ex officio of 
the Queens of England. If only the sentiment had 
held its ground throughout the course of history, what 
a great and wealthy foundation this would have been ! 
Indeed, if only the College had been allowed to hold 
what it did hold on the day of Bosworth Field, it 
would perhaps have been superfluous to desire for it a 
continuance of royal patronage ! It is stated (Cooper, 
" Mem.," i. 280) that in this same year, 1465, Elizabeth 
" appropriated a part of her income to the completion 
of this College." Yet there is no record of any gift 
from the second foundress, though she is commemor- 
ated with other members of the House of York, whose 
interest and liberality are very possibly to be ascribed 
to the Queen's good offices. In 1468 Queen Elizabeth 
visited Cambridge, and saw for herself the progress her 
College had made (Cooper, " Ann.," i. 216). 

The Lady Margery Roos, mentioned above as lady 
of the bedchamber to Queen Margaret, gave money 
wherewith were purchased the manors of Horsham Hall, 
Mone Hall, Cromes Hall and Hampsted Hall, together 
with land at Abbotslay, the whole property producing 
an income sufficient to endow five priest Fellows, who 
were to pray for the soul of Lady Margery and her two 
husbands, with a stipend of 10 marks (£6 12s. 4<d.) 
apiece, that being the regular dividend of a Fellow at 
the time. Horsham Hall was purchased October 5, 
1469, which gives us the date of the benefaction. 
Lady Margery also presented the Chapel with plate, 


vestments and books. In her will (Searle, p. 73) she 
directs that she should be buried in the Chapel, " in the 
choir on the north side under her window of St. 
Margaret and St. Bernard." A Fellowship, with similar 
conditions attached to it, was founded soon afterwards 
by Dame Alice Wyche, and on March 5, 1473, the 
King allowed Lady Joan Burgh to give to the College 
the manor of St. Nicholas Court, Thanet, then of the 
yearly value of 13 marks (Searle, pp. 81-83). To the 
following year, 1474, belongs a curious document which 
illustrates one method of procuring funds adopted by 
Andrew Dokett. 

" This endenture made betwene maister Andrew Doket 
president of the Quenes college in the universite of Cam- 
brigge and the ffeliship of the same college on the one 
partie, and Robert Rocheford grocer and Robert Carvell 
mercer, citizens of London, on that other partie wit- 
nesseth : that the seid president and ffeliship have receyved 
the day of the date of these presentes [March 3rd, 1474] 
of the seid Robert and Robert for the soule of Edmund 
Carvell, late citizen and grocer of London now dede, 
XX" sterling to thentent that the seid Edmond shall be 
taken and receyved as benefactour of the forseid college 
and to be made partener of all the suffrages masses and 
alle other merytory dedes that shall be seid and doon 
w'ynne the same college for other benefactours of the 
same, And also that the soule of the same Edmond shall 
be remembered among other benefactours of the same 
college atte Dirige and masse of Requiem to be seyd for 
them wons in every year w'ynne the same college. ..." 

Poor William Sautre, the first victim of the Statute of 
1401, had maintained that it was more pleasing to God 


to spend money on the poor than on pilgrimages. But 
the " Supplication of Beggars " was not written until 
1528, and even then no less enlightened a person than 
Sir Thomas More wrote the " Supplication of Souls " 
in reply. 

The first Statutes, which continued in force till 1529, 
were given " for the founding and establishing of the 
College " by letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, March 
10, 1475, " at the humble petition and special requisi- 
tion of Andrew Dokett the first president "" and by the 
advice of the royal counsellors assembled for that pur- 
pose. The preamble states that 

"the duties of our royal prerogative require, piety 
suggests, natural reason demands that we should be 
specially solicitous concerning those matters whereby the 
safety of souls and the public good are promoted, and 
poor scholars, desirous of advancing themselves in the 
knowledge of letters, are assisted in their need." 

The foundation is enlarged from a President and 
four Fellows to a President and twelve Fellows, and 
they are all to be in priest's orders. A Fellow upon 
election is to devote himself to philosophy or to theology. 
On becoming a master of arts he may teach in the 
triviwm (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and quadrivium 
(arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy) for three years 
at a fixed salary from the College. Teaching is optional, 
provided that the Fellow devotes himself to liberal 
sciences or to the philosophy of Aristotle. 

" On the completion of these three years, if a Fellow 
should have no desire to study theology or to proceed in 


that faculty, he is permitted to turn his attention to 
either the canon or the civil law ; but this can only be by 
the consent of the Master and the majority of the Fellows, 
and the concessive character of the clause would incline us 
to infer that such a course would be the exception rather 
than the rule" (Mullinger, "Univ. of Camb.," i. p. 317). 

To this year 1475 belongs the purchase of the land 
W. of the river narrated in a previous chapter. 

No member of the reigning House showed such 
princely generosity to the College as Richard, Duke of 
Gloucester, afterwards Richard III. On April 10, 1477, 
the King permits his brother to grant to the President 
and Fellows of Queens' College the manor and advowson 
of Foulmire, Cambridgeshire, to found four Fellowships 
with stipends of £8 per annum for priests, who were to 
be called the four priests of the Duke of Gloucester's 
foundation, and were to " pray satisfactorie for the 
prosperuse astates of Richard the sayde duke of Gloucef 
and dame Anne his wife " and for their issue, for the 
royal family, &c, and for the souls of the Duke's father 
and of his friends slain " at Bernett Tukysbery or at 
any other feldes or jorneys, and for all cristen soulis" 
(Searle, pp. 89-92). 

Fellowships were founded by John Collinson, Arch- 
deacon of Northampton, 1478, by John Grene, Esquire, 
1479, and John Alfray, of Ipswich, 1481 ; in 1483 
Thomas Duffield, D.D., late Fellow, left a bequest to 
provide " unam lampadem ardentem coram summo altari 
infra capellam collegii.'" All these gifts were coupled 
with the condition that prayers should be offered for the 
donors and their friends. 


Archbishop Rotherham, Chancellor of the University, 
held the Great Seal at the death of Edward IV. But 
when the Duke of Gloucester was made Proctector the 
Archbishop was committed to the Tower, " because he 
had espoused the cause of the Queen Dowager, [then in 
sanctuary at Westminster]." The University hereupon 
petitioned the ProctectorfortheirChancellor,emboldened 
thereto by"his bountiful and gracious charity 1 ' — "found- 
ing certyn Prestys and Fellows to the grete worship of 
God, and to the encresse of Cristes faith, in the Qwenys 
College of Cambrigge." And again the following year, 
in acknowledging the benefaction of Richard, now 
King, the University specially mention that he "has 
lately liberally and devoutly founded exhibition for 
four Priests in the Queens' College. And now also the 
most serene Quene Anne, Consort of the same Lord the 
King (that most pious King consenting and greatly 
favouring) has augmented and endowed the same college 
with great rents " (Cooper, "Ann.," i. 225 and 228). This 
mention of it on March 16, 1484, shows that this latter 
gift was intended and announced before it was actually 
made. On March 25, 1484, the King allows the College 
to hold property in mortmain to the annual value of 
700 marks (Searle, pp. 95-97), and on July 5 at the 
request of his Queen-consort he grants " to the Queen's 
College of St. Margaret and St. Bernard, which exists 
by the foundation and patronage of our aforesaid con- 
sort," the manor of Covesgrave (Cosgrove), Northampton- 
shire, his lands and rents in Sheldingthorp (Skelling- 
thorp), Market Deeping, Barham (Barholme) and 
Stowe, Lincolnshire, the manors of Newton, Suffolk, 
Stanford, Berkshire, and Buckby, Northamptonshire, 


with £60 per annum from the fee farm of the town of 
Aylesbury and £50 from the fee farm of the fair of 
St. Ives (Searle, pp. 98, 99). Fuller is no doubt right 
in counting this as one of the acts whereby "King 
Richard endeavoured to render himself popular. First 
by making good Laws in that sole Parliament kept in 
his Reign. . . . Next he endeavoured to work himself 
into their goodwill, by erecting and endowing of Religious 
Houses ; so to plausiblelize himself, especially among the 
Clergy. . . . He is said also to have given to Queens 
College in Cambridge five hundred marks of yearly 
rent ; though at this time, I believe, the College receives 
as little benefit by the Grant, as Richard had right to 
grant it. For, it was not issued out of his own purse, 
but given out of the lands of his enemy, the unjustly 
proscribed Earl of Oxford ; who being restored by 
Henry the Seventh, made a resumption thereof" 
(" Church Hist., 11 iv. 6, 7). But the estates were not all 
the property of the Earl of Oxford; some of them 
belonged to Anne, Countess of Warwick, the Queen's 
mother, whose property was taken from her and given 
to her daughter by authority of Parliament. 

However, whatever were the King^ motives, and 
whatever were his rights in the matter, this grant 
brought the College little good. They held the land 
only for one year, and received only one half-year's 
rent — Michaelmas 1484 to Easter 1485. The sum 
received- amounted to £13% 17s. 10d., but from this 
must be deducted expenses connected with the gift, 
amounting to ,£68 12*. 3Jd. (Searle, pp. 110-111). 
For many years the yearly income of the College did 
not exceed £200, so that these estates would have more 


than doubled its annual revenue. Fuller may be 
quoted again : 

" As for King Richard the third, his benefaction made 
more noise than brought profit therewith . . . which soon 
after was justly resumed by King Henry the seventh and 
restored to the right owner thereof. The Colledge no 
whit grieving thereat, as sensible no endowment can be 
comfortable, which consists not with Equity and Honour " 
(" Univ. of Camb," v. 35). 

Gifts of Richard III., which remained longer in the 
hands of the presentees, were vestments for use in the 
Chapel and his badge of the boar's head, which is still 
used by the College. 

Andrew Dokett died November 4, 1484. By his will, 
dated two days earlier,?he leaves to the College 40*. per 
annum from his Hostel of St. Bernard, to maintain the 
Chapel services, the remainder of the income from the 
Hostel to be held by his executors for life, on their 
death the Hostel to become the property of Queens' 
College. Similarly, the house at the corner near St. 
Botolph's Church is to be sold, and the proceeds in- 
vested in land, pastures or tenements ; the income is to 
be applied at the discretion of his executors "pro salute 
anime mee, Regmaldi Ely et omnium henefactorum.^ and 
on the death of the executors this property also passes 
to the College. The three houses in which three poor 
women reside (i.e., the earliest Almshouses, then in 
Small Bridge Street) are to be managed by his execu- 
tors, and afterwards by the College. To this disposi- 
tion the condition is attached that his exsequies should 
be celebrated on the anniversary with the exsequies of 


all the benefactors in the College Chapel : the President 
is to receive 3s. 4id., each Fellow 1*., and a distribution 
is to be made among the poor, especially the poor of 
St. Botolph's parish, to the sum of 20*. He further 
bequeaths to the College his garden " in front of the 
gates of the College, near the house of Mr. Duffyld " ; 
the residue of his goods he leaves to his executors, John 
Rypplyngham and William Thurkylle (Searle, pp. 
56-58). Dokett had been spared to govern his founda- 
tion during the most critical period of its existence. 
Its prosperity was largely, perhaps almost wholly, due 
to his personal exertions and to the wisdom wherewith 
he had shaped its course through the stormy years of 
war and revolution. He had commenced with four 
Fellows : the number of Fellows was now seventeen ; 
the buildings were practically completed, and the Col- 
lege was not inadequately endowed. He was felix 
opportumitate mortis, in that he passed from the scene 
of his labours just when the College had been enriched 
by the splendid endowment received from Richard III., 
and when there could have been no suspicion that the 
half-year in which he died would be the only period for 
which an income would be received from these estates. 
His will directed that he should be buried " in choro 
capelle collegii predicti ubi lecte sunt lectiones." 

"He is buried" [writes Cole about 1777] "in the 
chapel of his own college under a gravestone of grey 
marble, exactly in the middle, in the antechapel under the 
step as you ascend into the Choir. . . . He is in a 
Doctor's Habit, but being continually trod on twice a day, 
as People go into the chapel, it is no wonder that the 


strokes are worn away and that it is now almost a plain 
smooth piece of brass." 

In his will he had written, " I desire and, so far as 
lieth in me, I enjoin all the Fellows of the said College 
that they elect to be President of the said College as 
my sucessor Mr. Thomas Wilkynson." This person, 
so strongly recommended for election, had probably 
been a Fellow of Queens', as his name is associated in a 
deed of 1480 with John Rypplingham and Ralph Songar, 
who were Fellows. He held at this time the sinecure 
rectory of Harrow-on-the-Hill and the rectory of 
Orpington, Kent, and resided sometimes at one, some- 
times at the other of these places. There are entries 
in the accounts giving the expenses incurred in going 
to the President at " Harwe " or " Horpington," and so 
far as appears, Mr. Wilkynson only came to Cambridge 
when his presence was required there for elections to 
Fellowships, for the audit and for Stourbridge Fair. 
As the Statutes of 1475 , prescribe the election of a 
President on the eighth day after the vacancy, Thomas 
Wilkynson was probably elected November 11, 1484. 

The executors named in Dokett's will declined the 
office, and letters of administration were granted by 
Dr. Tuppyn, the Vice-Chancellor, to Mr. Wilkynson, 
the President, and the Fellows of the College, April 23, 
1485 (Searle, p. 58). 

When the battle of Bosworth Field gave the crown 
to Henry VII., the short-lived prosperity which Queens 1 
College had enjoyed from the gifts of Richard III. 
ended abruptly. The estates seem to have reverted at 
once to their original owners. The Earl of Oxford was 


restored by Henry's first Parliament, November 1485 ; 
the Act of Parliament which had deprived the Countess of 
Warwick was annulled in 1487, when the Countess con- 
veyed her property to the King, so that in a double 
sense " these gifts were resumed by King Henry VII." 
The result of this resumption was to reduce the number of 
Fellowships from seventeen to thirteen. But, happily, 
fresh endowments soon came. A Fellowship was 
founded in 1491 by the Lady Joan Ingaldesthorpe, 
cousin of Lady Margery Roos, who gave the manor of 
Great Eversden for the endowment of a priest> to sing 
and pray for the soul of Lady Joan and her friends, 
with a salary of 10 marks. A Fellow of the College 
was also to be presented to the rectory of St. Andrew's, 
Canterbury, a privilege lost at the Dissolution of the 
Monasteries. Dr. John Drewell, Canon of St. Paul's, 
who died in 1494, had given lands in Abbotsley, Has- 
lingfield and Pampisford, worth i?24 a year, for the 
maintenance of two Fellows and a Bible-clerk. The 
executor of Dr. Drewell's will, William Wilde, also a 
Canon of St. Paul's, was likewise a benefactor to the 
College (Searle, pp. 119-123). 

The building of the N. and S. sides of the Cloisters 
belongs probably to the year 1495. (See p. 23.) 

Henry VII. honoured Cambridge with many visits. 
" His Grace was honourably receyvede both of the 
Universitie and of the towne" March 12, 1486 (Cooper, 
" Ann.," i. 232). He came again April 1487, and appar- 
ently in 1491 (Cooper, "Ann.," i. 240) and 1497 (ibid. 
249). In 1498 the King and Queen were in Cambridge 
on September 1, on their way from Lynn to Huntingdon, 
and visited Queens' College, for there appears in the Bur- 


sar's accounts for the year the entry : " m expensis adven- 
tus regis et regine, ut paid per billam. . . . V* 6b. 
(Searle, p. 123). 

In 1502 the College received from Hugh Trotter, D.D., 
Treasurer of York Minster, formerly Fellow, a sum of 
■£"253 6s. 8d., with which an estate was purchased at 
Fulbourn. In the following year, February 11, 1503, 
the Queen-consort, Elizabeth of York, died. She was 
the first of the four Queens, since the foundation of the 
College, who had not claimed the position of patroness, 
nor did she, so far as is known, promote the prosperity 
of the College. Yet she must have felt that she had 
rights in connexion with the College, for there remains 
the fragment of a mandate from her, with her auto- 
graph in the margin, for the election of a person named 
Billington to be " scoler " (Searle, p. 124). 

The Presidentship was resigned by Mr. Wilkynson in 
April 1505. In the records is a letter dated April 12, 
between two entries of March 18 and May 7, 1505, 
which clearly refers to an announcement of his resig- 
nation : 

"Ryght reverent and worschypfull and to us att all 
tymys most syngular and specyall good mast', Wee 
yo r scolars and dayly beedmen humblie recomend us unto 
yo r mast'schyp And for as mysch as we underston be 
y e lett rs of the moste excellent p'nces, my lady the kyngs 
mother [the Lady Margaret], and allso by y r lett r s that ye 
be at this tyme myndyt to resigne the p'sidentship of this 
our colage called the qwenys colage, so that ye myght 
knowe our mynds in this thing, wherefor we write unto 
yower masfship at this tyme signifying unto you y' we 
ar fully defminate and doth promise you to elect such as 


is thoght unto you necessary and profitable unto this our 
colage, the lorde bisshop of Rochest' [John Fisher]. In 
witness wherof we have sett to o r comon seale, besechyng 
you to contynew goode maistre to the same colage and 
to all us: and wee shall daiely pray for the long and 
prosperus contynuance of your helth to the plesour of 
God, who preserve yowe. Frome Cambrige in haste the 
XIJ* daye of Apll." 

Wilkynson became Prebendary of Ripon in June 
1511, died December 13, 1511, and was buried at 
Orpington, where is his monument, a slab with a figure 
of a priest in brass, habited in a plain cope. 

We may note, before leaving his time, that the 
curious covenant of May 12, 1503, between the Univer- 
sity and the Town (Cooper, " Ann.," i. 260-270) is 
signed by " the Mancipil of the Queens Colledge." It is 
signed also, among others, by the Manciples of Pem- 
broke, St. Mary's, and other Hostels, by the " Barber 
of Peterhouse," " the Conduct of the King's Colledge," 
" the Launder of the King's Colledge," " the Mason of 
the University," and " the Baker of the King's Hall." 
The happy result of this covenant was that the scholars 
and the townsmen " ly ved at better peace to the great 
benefitt of themselves and the whole realm besides." 

From a photograph by] {¥■ Palmer Clarke, Cambridge 




" For the first time men opened their eyes and saw." 

Presidents: John Fisher, 1505-1509; Robert Bekensaw, 1508-1519; 
John Jenyn, 1519-1525; ThomasJJfarman, i525~i526(?) ; William 
Frankelyn, 1526 (?)-i528. 

At the Renaissance the world woke from the slumber of 
the Middle Ages. Were there ever crowded into a 
half-century events so striking as those which mark the 
fifty years which end with the discovery of the New 
World? The Invention of Printing had made the 
popular diffusion of knowledge possible, and books soon 
were brought within the reach of ordinary men. When 
More wrote the " Utopia" (1518) the travels of Amerigo 
Vespucci were " in everybody's hands." The capture of 
Constantinople by the Turks had driven Greek scholars 
to Italy and opened new fields of science and literature 
to the minds of Western Christendom. Florence, which 
was already "the home of freedom and of art," now 
became the scene of a great revival of letters. And 
then suddenly a New World was added to the Old 
World. All the preconceived ideas of the Middle Ages 
were broken down. The intelligence, the interest, the 
curiosity of men were strangely stirred and quickened. 


And the movement soon crossed the Alps and reached 
England. It assumed a form characteristic of the 
national mind in becoming, if less literary, more 
religious, more serious, more practical. John Colet is 
perhaps its best type and exponent. Archbishop 
Warham is its wise and generous patron. Erasmus is 
its most brilliant and fascinating embodiment. No- 
where was the result of the " New Birth " more quicken- 
ing than at the Universities. Erasmus* (Epist., ii. 10) 
describes what Cambridge had been and what it had 
now become. 

" Scarcely thirty years ago nothing was taught here but 
Alexander, the Parva Logicalia as they call them, antiquated 
exercises from Aristotle, and the Quaestiones of Scotus. In 
process of time better studies were added, a knowledge of 
mathematics, a new, at any rate a renovated, Aristotle, and 
a knowledge of Greek literature. . . . What has been the 
result to your University ? The University has so flourished 
that it can compete with the best Universities of the age." 

And when in the same decade Bishop Fisher, one of the 
foremost and most influential supporters of the move- 
ment, was President and Erasmus abode here to teach 
Greek, surely Queens' 1 College might claim to be the 
focus et ara of the Renaissance in England ! 

John Fisher, son of a well-to-do mercer at Beverley, 
entered v Michael House, graduated 1487, was soon 
elected Fellow, proceeded M.A. 1491, was Senior 
Proctor 1494 and was elected Master of Michael 
House 1497. As Proctor he was sent to the Court at 
Greenwich and there presented to the King's mother, the 

* The references are to the edition of Flesher & Young, London 1642. 


Lady Margaret (Mullinger, " Univ. of Camb.," i. 434). 
He became her confessor in 1497, and already the 
foundation of the Lady Margaret's Readerships at the 
Universities seems to have been mooted- In 1501 
Fisher, now D.D., was elected Vice-Chancellor, and in 
1503, when the Lady Margaret's Readership was formally 
endowed and instituted, was elected the first Professor. 
The endowment was ,£13 6*. 8d., a large sum judged 
by the ordinary salaries of the time. The Professor 
was to read in the Divinity Schools, libere, solleniter et 
aperte, to every one resorting there, without fee or 
reward other than his salary, such works in Divinity as 
the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor with " the college of 
doctors" shall judge necessary, for an hour, namely 
from seven till eight in the morning, or at such other 
time as the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor shall think 
fit. He was to read every accustomed day in term and 
in the Long Vacation up to September 7, but to cease in 
Lent, if the Chancellor thought fit, in order that during 
that season he and his auditors might be occupied in 
preaching.* In case the Reader be elected Chancellor or 
Vice-Chancellor, he was to lose the Readership within a 
month (Cooper, "Ann.," i. 271, 272). As Fisher was 
Vice-Chancellor, he resigned at the beginning of the 
new academic year, and Cosin, Master of Corpus, was 
appointed in his stead. 

In the following year, 1504, Fisher was elected 
Chancellor of the University and appointed Bishop of 
Rochester. This promotion, given at an early age to a 

* On the object of this clause, and of the Lady Margaret's 
Preachership, viz., to revive pulpit oratory, see Mr. Mullinger, 
" Univ. of Camb.," i. 437#. 


man who neither solicited nor expected it, might be 
attributed to the influence of the Lady Margaret. But 
the Bishop's own statement (Lewis, " Life of Fisher, 1 " ii. 
270) is conclusive that the promotion came unsought 
from the King himself. Fisher was now in a position 
of great authority, and his influence was used in 
behalf of his own University. To his representations 
to his patroness it is clearly due that her attention was 
drawn to Cambridge and the stream of her munificence 
directed to the foundation of Christ's and St. John's. 
He had resigned the Mastership of Michael House, to 
which John Fotehede was elected in 1505, and resided 
mainly at Rochester. But the plans of the Countess of 
Richmond made him anxious to have an abode in 
Cambridge, and Thomas Wilkynson, who, as we have 
seen, was generally non-resident, resigned the President- 
ship of Queens' College with the double purpose of 
enabling the Chancellor to have a Cambridge residence 
and of securing for his College so distinguished a Head. 
Fuller's account (" Church Hist.," v. 33) is this:' 

"He was Chaplain and Confessour to the Lady Margaret, 
Comtesse of Richmond, at whose instance and by whose 
advise, She founded and endowed Christ's and S. John's 
Colledge in Cambridge. Employed in building of the 
latter (her posthume Colledge of S. John's), and effectually 
advancing that work, he wanted the accomodation of a 
convenient Lodging, when Dr. Thomas Wilkinson, Presi- 
dent of Queens Colledge, opportunely departed this life : 
and that Society requested Bishop Fisher to succeed in his 
place, which he gratefully accepted, faithfully discharged, 
and thereby had the advantage to finish his new Colledge 
in the lesse time, to his greater contentment." 


Thomas Wilkynson had not " departed this life," but 
had resigned (he lived till 1511), and St. John's was not 
founded till 1511. But Christ's was founded in 1505, 
and Bishop Fisher was probably anxious to be in Cam- 
bridge to superintend its progress. He was elected to 
the Presidentship before May 7, 1505. The Lady 
Margaret visited Cambridge this same year, doubtless 
in connexion with her new foundation. She was 
" received with the honour due to so eminent and 
munificent a benefactress, the University proceeding as 
far as Caxton to meet her" (Cooper, "Ann.," i. 275). That 
she stayed in Queens' College appears from the accounts, 
where there are entries of preparations for her arrival 
and for washing of linen used cum mater regis mtererat 
collegia nosiro (Searle, p. 134). Again on April 22, 
1506, the Countess of Richmond was in Cambridge, on 
this occasion accompanied by the King. They were 
received outside the town by the Mayor and the Sheriff, 
then by 

" the four Ordres of Freres and aftir odir Religious . . . 
and then ther stode all along all the Graduatts, aftir 
their Degrees, in all their Habbitts, and at the end of 
them was the Unyversyte Cross, wher was a Forme and a 
Cushin &c as accustomed, where the King dyd alight, and 
there the Bysshopp of Rochestre, Doctor Fisher, then 
beyng Chaunceller of the Unyversyte, accompanied with 
odir Doctors, sensyd [sprinkled with incense] the Kyng, 
and aftir made a litle Proposition and welcomed hym ; 
and then the Kyng took his Horse ageyn and rood by the 
Blackfriers [the site of Emmanuel], thoroughe the Towne, 
to the Queens Colledge, wher hys Grace was at that time 
lodgged" (Cooper, "Ann.," i. 281). 


" The litle Proposition * — i.e., the Latin Oration of the 
Chancellor — has been preserved and is analysed by Mr. 
Mullinger (" Univ. of Camb.," i. 449-451). 

Mr. Mullinger (ibid. 452) thinks that Erasmus may 
have followed in the royal train on this occasion. 
Desiderius Erasmus (b. 1467, d. 1536) had visited 
England in 1497 at the invitation of his pupil William 
Blount, Lord Mountjoy. He was now intimate with 
Bishop Fisher, and among his friends was Richard 
Whitford, Fellow of Queens 1 , to whom he dedicates his 
edition of Lucian's " Tyrannicida " in this year. He 
came to Cambridge in 1506, when a grace was passed 
allowing him to commence D.D. His stay on this 
occasion was not of long duration. But he writes from 
the neighbourhood of Cambridge, Nov. 1, 1507 (Epist., 
vi. 9). For the nex£ two years he was mainly in Italy, 
returned to England on the news of Henry VIII.'s 
accession 1509, and, taking up his residence in Cam- 
bridge 1510, remained with his headquarters in this 
College for perhaps four years.* 

" Queens Colledge " (says Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," v. 
39) " accounteth it no small credit thereunto, that Erasmus 
(who no doubt might have pickt and chose what House 
he pleased) preferred this for the place of his study for 
some years in Cambridge. Either invited thither with the 
fame of the learning and love of his friend Bishop Fisher 
then Master thereof, or allured with the situation of this 
Colledge so neer the River (as Rotterdam his native place 
to the Sea) with pleasant walks thereabouts." 

The latter and more poetical reason is as delightful as 

* In Westdeutsche Zeitschrift IX. (Trier, 1896) Max Reich makes 
Erasmus' Cambridge residence only two years and a half. See p. 15 1 /. 


it is characteristic of Fuller. The influence of Bishop 
Fisher was no doubt a main factor in determining 
„ Erasmus' choice of a College, though Fisher had re- 
signed the Presidentship before Erasmus came into 
residence. But it may be added that at least one 
other member of the Society, Whitford, was already 
reckoned among his intimates, that others, such as 
Bullock and Fawne, were soon among his close friends, 
that the College contained men of mark who played a 
prominent part in Cambridge and in the great move- 
ments of the day, also that at the time, if we may judge 
from the valuation of 1534 (Cooper, " Ann.," i. 370), 
King's was the only College which enjoyed a larger 
revenue, and that by the proctorial cycle of 1514 King's, 
Queens' and Christ's are given most nominations. 
There remains the larger question why Erasmus selected 
Cambridge in preference to Oxford, where he had made 
so many friends, More, Colet, Linacre, Grocyn, William 
Latimer, in 1498, and which would have gladly wel- 
comed him back again ; to Paris, his own alma mater ; 
to Louvain, then rising into high repute ; or to one 
of the Italian Universities. He liked Italy, but he 
disliked the tendency of Italian learning. It was too 
sceptical, too pagan, and jarred upon Erasmus' deeper 
feelings. Louvain and Paris he seems to have thought 
too exclusively theological. From Oxford many of his 
best friends had gone, and thus the place had lost 
much of its attraction for him. But perhaps the main 
reason why he did not return there was the scanty 
encouragement held out to a Greek schblar. The 
University was strongly anti-Greek, and the " Trojan " 
riots (Mullinger, " Univ. of Camb.," i. 524 ; Fuller, 


"Univ. of Camb.," vi. 39), which soon afterwards agitated 
Oxford, showed how wise was the decision of Erasmus 
that at the moment the most promising field for Greek 
scholarship was Cambridge, under the protection of the 
all-powerful Fisher. 

Andrew Pascal], Fellow of Queens' and Rector of 
Chedsey, Somersetshire, 165&-1663, gives in the year 
1680 an account of the residence of Erasmus (Searle, 
p. 153, Willis and Clark, ii. p. 15). 

"The staires which rise up to his studie at Queen's 
College in Cambr. doe bring first into two of the fairest 
chambers in the ancient building ; in one of these, which 
looked into the hall and the chief court, the Vice-President 
kept in my time ; in that adjoyning, it was my fortune to 
be when fellow. The chambers over are good lodgeing 
rooms ; and to one of them is a square turret adjoyning, 
in the upper part of which is the study of Erasmus ; and 
over it leads. To that belongs the best prospect about 
the Colledge, viz., upon the river, into the corne-fields, and 
country adjoyning. So y l it might very well consist with 
the civility of the House to that great man (who was no 
fellow, and I think stayed not long there) to let him have 
that study. His sleeping roome might be either the Vice- 
President's, or to be neer to him, the next. The room for 
his servitor that above it, and through it he might goe to 
that studie, which for the height, and neatnesse, and 
prospect, might easily take his phancy." 

I am not sure that, if I understand him aright, Pascall 
is correct in his details. In any case the popular notion, 
perhaps springing from the name "Erasmus'' tower," 
that Erasmus occupied only the tower, is quite erroneous. 
Equally misleading are descriptions that represent the 


great scholar as " toiling in his garret at Queens. 1 " 
To Erasmus was allotted what was probably the best 
and most spacious suite of apartments in the College. 
He was better housed than the President himself had 
been before 1510. He occupied the whole of the space 
on the right-hand side of the passage which leads to 
the turret-rooms. Below there were two large rooms, 
above there was another spacious chamber ; and the little 
turret-room known as "Erasmus' oratory 1 ' was in, all 
probability occupied by his servant, the " servitor " of 
Pascall's account. And Pascall calls the rooms " good 
lodging-rooms, 11 and himself as a Fellow had occupied 
only a part of the suite assigned to Erasmus. Another 
common notion, viz., that Erasmus was poor, has been 
sufficiently disposed of by Mr. Mullinger. 

"With ordinary prudence, his income must have more 
than sufficed for his wants ; he received from his Professor- 
ship over thirteen pounds annually ; he had been pre- 
sented by Warham to the rectory of Aldington in Kent, 
and, though non-resident, he drew from thence an income 
of twenty pounds, to which the Archbishop, with his 
usual liberality, added another twenty from his own purse. 
To these sums we must add an annual pension of a 
hundred florins from Fisher, and a second pension, which 
he still continued to receive, from his generous friend, 
Lord Mountjoy. His total income, therefore, could scarcely 
have been less than £700 in English money of the present 
day " (" Univ. of Camb.," i. 504). 

Few members of the University at the time could 
have been in receipt of anything like the same amount. 
But Erasmus was not economical, and he liked the best 



of everything. When a man has his servant and his 
horse, is able to move about freely, can secure all the 
books he needs and is surrounded by a host of open- 
handed friends, the references he makes to lack of 
money need not be taken too seriously : they only 
mean that Erasmus could have managed to spend 

In view of the gibe of Gibbon that Erasmus learnt at 
Oxford the Greek which he taught at Cambridge, it 
may be worth while to point out that the serious study 
of that language, with which his fame is inseparably 
connected, was only commenced by Erasmus after he 
had said farewell to Oxford. He knew some Greek 
before : but it was when he left Oxford that he devoted 
himself to the study. At that time he writes, " I have 
applied my whole soul to Greek, and as soon as I get 
money I will buy first Greek books and then clothes.'" 
Again, six years later he tells Colet (Epist., x. 8) 
that he has been working hard at Greek and "found 
that he could do nothing in literature without a know- 
ledge of Greek." The period between his visit to 
Oxford and his residence at Cambridge may be described 
as the time spent in accumulating those stores of scholar- 
ship, which he afterwards turned to such splendid 
account, and his own description of himself as 
avToSlSanTog should prevent any misconception as to 
the source of his attainments. 

Thus equipped the great scholar took up his abode in 
Queens' College and embarked upon the task of teach- 
ing Greek. In the October term of 1511 he was 
lecturing on the Grammar of Chrysoloras (the Greek 
scholar who had been so successful at Florence), but his 


class was small. He hopes to have a larger audience 
when he takes the larger Grammar of Theodoras Gaza 
(published 1495). In the same letter, addressed to his 
good friend, Andreas Ammonius of Lucca, who was 
Latin secretary to Henry VIII. and collector of Papal 
dues in England, he says, " Perhaps I shall also under- 
take a lecture in Theology, for the question is now 
under discussion " (Epist., viii. 3). In this matter his 
hopes were not disappointed, for he was elected the 
Lady Margaret's Reader in this year, and, as at the 
expiry of his two years he was re-elected, he con- 
tinued to hold the post for the whole period of his 
residence, and was succeeded by his friend Dr. Fawne of 
Queens' — the Phaunus of his letters. It is clear that 
Erasmus was disappointed with the results of his teach- 
ing. He did not attract the numbers nor see the success 
for which he had hoped. But he was as easily 
depressed as he was easily elated. He was sanguine and 
despondent by turns, with as little reason often in the 
one case as the other. Whatever he may have thought 
at the time, he left his mark behind him in Cambridge. 
His friends and pupils are men of great note in the 
next few years. Among them may be instanced, 
besides Fawne and Bullock already mentioned, Bryan 
and Aldrich' of King's, the latter of whom accompanied 
him on his famous journey to " our Lady of Walsing- 
ham"; Watson, afterwards Master of Christ's, and 
Sampson of Trinity Hall, the future Bishop of Lichfield 
and Coventry. And posterity may be thankful that 
his success in the lecture-room was not sufficient to keep 
him from his study. Fruitful and lasting as the effect 
of his teaching may be thought to have been, in reality 


it sinks into insignificance, when it is compared in 
importance with the literary work done in these years. 
It was here that he composed his edition of St. Jerome, 
dedicated to Archbishop Warham, which taught the 
age to estimate at its true value the Theology of the 
Middle Ages, and led men back again to the true path 
of Biblical criticism. St. Jerome, and not St. Augustine, 
was theologorum prvnceps. Erasmus speaks out in the 
preface of this work with no uncertain voice : 

" Synods, decrees and even councils are not in my 
judgment the best methods of repressing error, unless 
indeed truth depends solely upon authority. . . . The 
Christian faith was never so pure and undefiled as when a 
single Creed was thought to be enough and that the 
shortest Creed we have." 

And still more important, nay incalculably important, 
was his famous edition of the New Testament, known as 
Novum Instrumentvm. The marvellous effect of the 
work was less due to the fact that it upset the venera- 
tion with which the Vulgate was regarded, as a final 
authority in questions of text, and led men back to the 
Greek original, than to the method which it inculcated 
and exemplified. Interpretation was based upon the 
literal meaning of the text. Men were recalled to the 
historical value of the New Testament. Drs. Westcott 
and Hort have made familiar to many the noble passage 
in which Erasmus enforces his views : 

" These books give you back the living image of the 
sacred mind of Christ, they present Christ in His own 
person speaking, healing, dying, rising again, in a word 


they so give the whole presence of Christ that you would 
see Him less clearly, if you beheld Him face to face with 
your eyes." 

In words quoted from Professor Brewer by Mr. 
Mullinger (" Univ. of Camb.," i. 510) : 

" the New Testament of Erasmus must be regarded as the 
foundation of that new school of teaching on which 
Anglican theology professes exclusively to rest; as such 
it is not only the type of its class, but the most direct 
enunciation of that Protestant principle which, from that 
time until this, has found expression in various forms : 
'The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.' What- 
ever can be read therein or proved thereby, is binding 
upon all men ; what cannot, is not to be required of any 
man as an article of his faith, either by societies or 
individuals. 'Who sees not that the authority of the 
Church was displaced and the sufficiency of all men 
individually to read and interpret for themselves was thus 
asserted by the New Testament of Erasmus ? " 

Even more significant, if we consider the date at 
which the words were written and the views taken on 
the appearance of Tyndale's version even by Bishop 
Fisher himself, is the eloquent passage in his preface, in 
which Erasmus pleads for a free circulation of the 
Scriptures in the vernacular : 

" I entirely differ from those who are unwilling that the 
sacred Scriptures, translated into the vulgar tongue, should 
be read by the unlearned, as though Christ taught such 
subtleties that they can with difficulty be understood by a 
very few theologians, or as though the strength of the 
Christian religion lay in men's ignorance of it. It may be 


better to conceal the state mysteries of kings, but Christ 
would have His mysteries /published abroad as widely as 
possible. I could wish that even women read the Gospels 
and the Epistles of St. Paul. I wish that they were 
translated into all languages of all people, that they might 
be read and understood not only by the Scotch and the 
Irish but even by the Turks and the Saracens. I wish 
that the husbandmen may sing portions of them as he 
follows the plough, that the weaver may chant them at his 
shuttle, that the traveller may with their narratives while 
away the weariness of the way." 

With this great work ready for publication Erasmus 
quitted England in 1515. He returned in the next 
year, when the Novum Instrumentum had been published, 
but does not seem to have come back to Cambridge. 
His friend Bullock — Bovillus — writes to tell him 
(Epist., ii. 9) how glad all his Cambridge friends are 
at his return : 

" they are busy working at Greek, they long ardently for 
his advent amongst them once more, they are highly pleased 
with his edition of the New Testament, polished, subtle, 
delightful and essential to every one who has any taste." 

But he did not come back. He wandered about, 
mainly in the Netherlands, till 1521, when he settled 
down in Basel, and henceforward the story of his career, 
which closed in sadness and depression there in 1536, is 
beyond the scope of the present history. 

But there is a letter (Epist., viii. 16) written from 
Queens' College to Ammonius — ex collegia Reginae 
August 25, 1511 — which is so often quoted that it would 
be considered an unpardonable omission if no reference 


were made to it, for it is known to thousands of people, 
who probably are not acquainted with any other 
detail of the illustrious scholar's life in Cambridge. I 
mean of course the letter which is supposed to reflect 
on the " College ale." 

"As to myself [he writes] I have so far no news to 
give you except that my journey [from London down to 
Cambridge] was most tiresome, and that my health is 
still rather doubtful from the heat into which the journey 
threw me. I think that I shall stay in this College at 
least for a time. I have not yet begun to lecture : I wish 
to recruit my health first." 

Then comes the well-known sentence, "Cervisia huius 
loci mihi nulla rnodo placet nee admodum satisfaciunt 
vina ; si possis efficere, ut uter aliquis vini Graecaniei, 
quantum potest optimi, hue deportetur, plane bearis 
Erasrnum tuum, sed quod alienum sit a dulcedine^ It is 
not incumbent upon the most loyal member of the 
College to defend the quality of the "College ale "at 
■this distance of time. " Many things have happened 
since then." And even had it been proper to enter the 
lists otherwise, the last vestige of necessity was removed 
when the College ceased to brew its own ale. But it 
is only fair to the memory of the brewer of the day to 
point out that there is no exclusive reference to the 
liquor made by him. What Erasmus says is cervisia 
huius loci, and the disparagement is of Cambridge ale in 
general. And, after all, what Erasmus really wants to 
do is to show cause why his good-natured friend should 
send him a cask of Greek wine, and why it should be of 
the best possible quality. Probably, however good he 


had thought the Cambridge cervisia, the Greek wine 
would have been asked for all the same: its alleged 
unsuitability to Erasmus' palate enables the request to 
be made with a better show of reason. But if he could 
have foreseen how often the words would be misquoted 
and misused against him, would he not have given some 
other reason, or even none at all ? 

This account qf the residence of Erasmus, brief as it 
is, has taken the narrative beyond some events of interest 
in the history of the College. In June 1508 Bishop 
Fisher resigned the Headship of the College. There are 
letters extant which bear upon the subject. Two are 
addressed by the Fellows to the President, a third to the 
Lady Margaret, who was evidently aware of the Bishop's 
intention and had interested herself in the choice of his 
successor. The Fellows write to their President that 
they are not so much surprised as grieved at his inten- 
bion of resigning. They assure him of their admiration 
and their grateful sense that they can have no President 
like him. He had alleged his inability to reside as a 
reason for resigning : they point out that many other 
Masters do not reside, and that they do not expect it of 
him, and ask him to reconsider his decision. Then, on 
learning that his mind is fully made up, they write 
again to express their sense of loss, and ask him to 
nominate his successor. The Bishop nominates Dr. 
Robert Bekensaw, Fellow of Michael House and almoner 
to the Lady Margaret, and his election is notified by 
the Fellows to the Lady Margaret, to Bishop Fisher and 
to Bekensaw himself. The date is apparently July 6, 
1508. The letters are printed in full (Searle, pp. 137- 
141). But though Bishop Fisher ceased to be President, 


and though much of his attention was soon given to the 
Lady Margaret's second foundation, St. John's College, 
the College over which he had presided, still enjoyed his 
wise protection and his kindly care. To the end of his 
life Fisher remained Chancellor of the University, and 
never had there been a Chancellor to whom more grati- 
tude was due, or of whom Cambridge had more reason 
to be proud. Erasmus ascribes to the Chancellor's 
influence the peace and progress of the University. To 
him Cambridge was indebted for the quiet introduction of 
Greek. To his influence the foundation of the Lady 
Margaret's Readership and Preachership was due, and 
his wisdom may be traced in the wise regulations which 
governed those foundations. It is hardly too much to 
call him the founder of Christ's and St. John's, for in all 
that the Lady Margaret did we see the hand of Fisher. 
In the words of the Fellows of his College, poteris vivaci- 
tate ingenii, perspicacitate consilii ad haec et auctoritate 
tua, plus unus efficere quam alii bis mille. His attain- 
ments, his virtues, his blameless character unite to make 
him indeed a remarkable man. And when he boldly con- 
fronted the haughty Wolsey and fearlessly championed 
the cause of Queen Catharine against the angry King, 
he acted worthily of himself and finally crowned a noble 
and holy life by a not less noble death, as with his New 
Testament opened at the words " This is eternal life, to 
know Thee the only true God," he knelt to await the 
axe' of the executioner. 

His predecessor, Thomas Wilkynson, had held the 
Headship without endowment. But Bishop Fisher and 
his immediate successors received £Q 6s. 8d. from the 
College, half the stipend of a Fellow, a sum apparently 


considered sufficient to defray their expenses while 
resident in Cambridge for elections and the like. It will 
be observed that Bekensaw, like Wilkynson and Fisher, 
was non-resident. This not only explains the smallness 
of the allowance made by the College to its Head, but is 
significant of the view taken at the time of the functions 
of a Master. A College was anxious to secure as its 
Head a man of position and authority. Fame in the 
the Church, influence at Court, weight in the State were 
probably the qualities principally desired. When later 
on a different view prevailed, viz., that it was desirable 
to have a resident Master, the emoluments of the office 
were increased and the Master's lodgings enlarged- 
Meanwhile a set of rooms served to accommodate the 
Master for such time as he was in residence, and a small 
sum was deemed sufficient to reimburse him for any 
expense to which he was put. But the view that the 
Headship of a College was a post to be held in conjunc- 
tion with high ecclesiastical office prevailed long after 
Fisher's time. The annals of Pembroke College afford 
an obvious instance. In that Collegium episcopate the 
Headship was retained by Bishop Fox at the beginning 
of the sixteenth century, by Bishop Ridley in the middle 
of the century, and by the saintly Bishop Andrewes at 
its close. 

Dr. Bekensaw at the time of his election was already 
Vicar of Croston and at Court in attendance on the 
Lady Margaret. He became in 1512 Rector of Brad- 
well-super-Mare, Essex, and Canon of Windsor. Besides 
other offices afterwards held by him, he was Chaplain 
and almoner to Catharine of Aragon and received from 
her the Deanery of Stoke-by-Clare in 1517 (Searle, 


p. 145). He was President for more than ten years, 
residing mainly at Windsor and later at Stoke, but 
coming to Cambridge when his presence was required 
for elections and for the audit. 

The President was originally lodged in the two rooms 
above the Combination-room — i.e., in the President's 
study and the bedroom over that, now called, from 
its first occupant, Andrew Dokett's room. A spiral 
staircase, which has now been brought into use again, 
conducted him from the Hall and Combination-room 
to his apartment, at the N.W. corner of which there 
was a small study. A door in the E. wall gave access 
to the Library and through it to the Chapel. The 
President was thus admirably situated. He was 
" enabled to survey the whole College or to approach 
any one of the principal buildings without crossing the 
court " (Willis and Clark, ii. 23). 

Part of the block on the W. side of the Cloisters, 
built 1460, had been used as public apartments. This 
part included the rooms which are now the servants' hall, 
the Audit-room, or dining-room, and the drawing-room 
of the Lodge, though originally the suite was not divided 
quite as it is at present. Access was gained to these 
rooms by the staircase at the N.E. angle and the suite 
was probably entered by the recess in the present 
drawing-room. In this suite was a room known as the 
" large room " (magna camera) and the " queen's room " 
(camera reginae), which apparently are the same. " The 
Queen's room" is prepared for Henry VII. in 1506, 
" the large room " for Catherine of Aragon in 1521 and 
for Cardinal Wolsey in 1520. 

When Bekensaw was elected President there was no 


connexion between the then President's lodgings on the 
E. side and these reception-rooms on the W. side. But 
during his tenure of the Mastership the first of the steps 
was taken by which the two blocks were joined and the 
present Lodge formed. The first step was the construc- 
tion of a "gallery." In the accounts for 1510 and the 
following years there are entries of payments " for 
cleaning the President's chamber, the gallery [le galere] 
and the queen's room," " for repairing the gallery, the 
cloister, and the Master's chamber," "for rushes laid 
down in the chamber and gallery." These entries show 
that " a gallery " had been already built, and it could 
not have been the present gallery, since in 1515-16 
there is a payment for repairing the lead roof on the N. 
side of the cloister {super plumbum claustri in parte 
boreali), which shows that the N. side had not yet been 
crowned by a gallery. Further, this " gallery " must 
have been in communication with the rooms occupied by 
the President, and, as the " gallery " was not over the 
N. side of the cloisters, the only possible position for it 
is the N.E. corner — i.e., the old study of the Lodge. It 
was an upper storey of wood supported on brick walls. 
The N. wall has been greatly altered, but the thick 
walls on E. and W. are almost without doubt the 
foundation of the old " gallery " (see Willis and Clark, 
ii. 36). By entries in the -accounts it is possible to 
trace approximately the subsequent steps in the build- 
ing. In 1533 a great deal of work was done in the 
President's quarters. There are two payments "pro ly 
casting of ledde pro deambulatorio presidentis^" and "pro 
ly leddis super deambulatorium presidentis? In the 
same year both the " gallery " or deambulatorium — i.e., 


the old Study — and the bedroom were wainscoted and 
hangings were purchased for the President's chamber. 
When the wall was purchased from the Carmelites (see 
chap, i.), a clause was inserted in the agreement, by 
which the Friars bind themselves not to block the lights 
of "three or four windows,'''' which the College had 
decided to make " on the N. side of a certain ambulatory 
called ly Galeri, adjacent to the demesne of the foresaid 
Carmelites'" (Searle, p. 194), and the accounts show 
that these windows were at once constructed. 

But in 1560 there are entries of payments for " con- 
structing the Master's upper chambers " (le sheddes ad 
wdificanda superiora cubicula magistri. Willis and 
Clark (ii. 34) note that the payments are all for wood- 
work ; there are no payments to tilers or plumbers. 
The inference is that there was no change in the roof 
and that all that was done was a re-arrangement of the 
upper storey. In other words, the gallery itself, which 
was not built in 1516, had been erected in 1560. The 
panel-work is a little later. "We are left to conclude, 
from the evidence afforded by the style, that it [the 
panel-work] is that mentioned in the will of Dr. Hum- 
phrey Tindall (Presidentl579-1614) ; and, from the terms 
employed, the cost appears to have been defrayed partly 
by subscription, partly by donations, which will explain 
the absence of all allusion to it in the Bursar's accounts : 

" ' Item. I give to the President and Fellows of Queens 
College in Cambridge, to my successors' use, all the seel- 
ing and wainscoting of my chambers and lodging I have 
which (I take) amounteth to two hundred and fifty pounds 
or thereabouts more than I have received from the college 
or any other benefactors towards the same." 


" The conclusion to which the extracts we have 
collected leads is that the present gallery was erected 
at some period between 1516 and 1541, but probably 
not before 1537 " (Willis and Clark, ii. 35). 

The materials purchased from the Carmelites were in 
all probability used in the construction of the gallery, 
and this also would make the date some time soon after 

This famous Gallery, one of the most beautiful and 
interesting buildings in Cambridge, is in two storeys, 
eighty feet long and twelve wide. It is constructed of 
timber, overhangs the cloister, and is supported by carved 
brackets which spring from the cloister walls. It is 
noteworthy that the positions of the brackets do not 
correspond with the arches of the cloister — a proof that 
the Gallery is of later date. 

Loggan's plan — an enlargement of which is given 
by Willis and Clark, ii. 32 — shows that originally the 
appearance of the Gallery was even more picturesque 
than it is at present. The oriels facing the cloisters 
were originally carried up higher. That in the centre 
and the two at either end of the Gallery " were carried 
above the roof in the form of turrets surmounted by a 
receding storey, a conical roof and lofty vanes of rich 
ironwork. The two intermediate oriels were carried up 
only as far as the eaves and had gables above 11 (Willis 
and Clark, ii. 30). 

When by the construction of the Gallery a junction 
had been made between the rooms on the E. and those 
on the W. sides of the cloisters, the public reception- 
rooms on the W. side were incorporated into the 
President's Lodge. The name " Audit-room, 11 still 


applied to the Lodge dining-room, is a survival of the . 
time when the room was not yet part of the Lodge and 
still preserves the memory of its old -public character. 
The Audit-dinner was actually held in this room 
until about twenty years ago. It will be observed that 
the extension of the Lodge which has been described 
coincides in date with the altered conception taken of 
the duties of the Head of a College. His constant 
residence was now desired to supervise the foundation 
over which he presided. When the bedrooms over the 
Gallery had been made in 1560, an ample residence was 
provided for the housing of a President and his family. 
It is clear that the limited accommodation considered 
adequate for the occasional residence of the earlier 
Presidents, and even for the constant residence of a 
bachelor President in pre-Reformation days, would 
soon have to be enlarged, when religious changes made 
it necessary to contemplate the permanent residence of 
a President and his family. Dr. Heynes (President 
1529-1538) was married, and his widow married his 
successor, Dr. Mey. 

To return to the events of Dr. Bekensaw's time, it 
may be noted that the pavement in front of and within 
the College was put down in 1515. It was still 
customary for poor scholars to perform menial work. 
Thus " four poor scholars are paid 16d. for two days 
work in cleaning the outer and inner courts. 11 Another 
poor scholar receives 6d. " for cleaning the Court and 
cloister of the College. 11 And service of this sort was 
still very common. If a poor student was unable to 
pay for his lodging and his tuition, it was quite 
customary for him to give an equivalent in service, to 


wait at table, to run errands — in fact, to act as a servant 
generally. A Rede lecturer has recently reminded the 
University that a poor student sometimes begged, and 
that the practice became so common that it was found 
necessary for the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, or 
the Commissary of the University to examine into 
the merits of each case and grant a certificate, if he 
thought that the applicant should be allowed to solicit 
the alms of the charitable (see Cooper, " Ann.," i. 245 
and 343). 

Bekensaw resigned his office about March 1519. No 
reason is given for his resignation, and he lived till 1526. 
His successor, John Jenyn, was the first President who 
had been educated at the College. He had gone through 
a round of College offices till 1509, when he was 
appointed by Thomas Wilkynson, Rector of Harrow 
and ex-President, to the Vicarage of Harrow-on-the 
Hill, which was in his gift as Rector. Jenyn had kept 
up his connexion with the College, and in March 1519 
he was elected President. It devolved upon him to 
receive Cardinal Wolsey when he visited the University 
in 1520. The Chapel and Cloisters were whitewashed 
and " the great chamber '" was prepared for his recep- 
tion. And from the accounts it appears that His 
Eminence was feasted on swans (Searle, p. 162). Henry 
Bullock, the friend of Erasmus, delivered an oration 
before the Cardinal on this occasion (Cooper, " Ann.," i. 
303). Early in the next year Jenyn was honoured by a 
visit from Catharine of Aragon, who stayed three days. 
Soon afterwards the Queen recommended John Lambert 
for election to a Fellowship. The College declined to 
accede to this request. They state in their letter to the 


Queen (Searle, p. 165) that they had asked his friends 
whether they would vouch for Lambert's learning, but 
" they wold not depose for hym." They then proposed 
that he should be brought to be examined by them, 
"but he wold not.'" They finally offered to give 

" an honest chamber and X markes for one year and hys 
lernyng, and yf they myght perceyve I the meane tyme 
that he wer virtuous and like to be lernyd that thene they 
wil elect and chose him felaw, as yo r g r ce wold heve theym 
to do : but all theys offers and mocyons hys father ofte 
tvmes have refused." 

However, John Lambert seems in the end to have 
been elected, and his name appears on the books for 
a short time. He was burnt at Smithfield for denying 
the Real Presence in 1538. 

In 1522 " bluff King Hal " himself was housed in the 
College. Swans were given to His Majesty and " fresh 
fish '" was bought to regale him. Swans and fish were 
likewise a part of the present given by the University 
(Cooper, "Ann.," i. 305). In the next year a comedy 
of Plautus was performed by members of the College, 
as appears from the accounts (Searle, p. 167). 

But after all these glories the mastership of John 
Jenyn came to a most inglorious end. He became 
involved in a dispute with the Fellows about the allow- 
ances which he claimed for his scholar, his horses, his fuel 
and his bills. His misconduct was represented by the 
Fellows to " the most reverend lord cardinal and the 
counsellors of the most illustrious queen many times," 


and in the end John Jenyn was removed or driven to 
resign. The details of the squabble become clear 
from the composition made between the Fellows and 
Simon Heynes after his election in January 1529. It is 
thereby agreed that the President shall have his commons 
during residence, the commons of one servant to keep 
his chamber at all times, the commons of a second 
servant only during residence. These allowances are 
to be taken in full compensation for all charges to which 
the President is put in finding servants " to ride with 
hym m causis collegii," and he is to "take no other 
allowance of the College for his said two servaunts 1 
wages, but only the commens of oon servant besid his 
scolar [another "poor scholar, 1 ' see p. 63] that kepith his 
chamber, and that when he is present." The other articles 
are that the President shall be " content to have three 
horsses founde when he lith at this college, 1 ' otherwise 
he shall provide for his horses himself; that he shall 
pay for firewood, candles and rushes, like the Fellows ; 
that, when he comes to Cambridge, the cost of providing 
for his duty shall be borne by himself; that, when he 
goes on College business, he shall return the items of his 
expenses, " not exceding a reasonable sum by the daye, 11 
and that such expenses shall be allowed only when he 
goes on College business by the advice and consent of 
the Fellows. In all these matters the President 
henceforth is, in short, not to do what John Jenyn had 
done. Happily the peace was made between Jenyn and 
the Fellows, and Jenyn visited the College on several 
occasions after he had ceased to be President (Searle, 
p. 169). Two very short masterships followed — those 
of Thomas Ffarman and William Frankelyn. Ffarman 


had been a Fellow for twelve or thirteen years, had held 
several College offices, became D.D. in 1524, and in 
1525 was instituted to the rectory of All Hallows, 
Honey Lane, London, on the presentation of the Grocers' 
Company. With Ffarman the beginnings of the 
Reformation are reached. He was one of the band of 
men who used to meet at the White Horse Inn, in 
Trumpington Street, " to confer and discourse for edifica- 
tion in Christian knowledge. 11 The nominal president 
of this coterie was the Augustinian Prior, Barnes, but 
Bilney was the leading spirit of the gatherings, which 
were attended by Crome, Shaxton and Skip from Gon- 
ville Hall, Rogers and Thixtill from Pembroke, Frith 
from King's, Taverner from Corpus, and, perhaps, as 
Mr. Mullinger suggests (" Univ. of Camb., 11 i. 573), by 
the future Archbishop, Matthew Parker. The Queens 1 
contingent consisted of Ffarman, Lambert, destined to 
a martyr's death, and Heynes, whose happy lot it was 
to aid in compiling the first English Liturgy. There 
was a back entrance into the White Horse from Milne 
Street, which afforded an unobserved way of approach to 
the members of Colleges like King's and Queens 1 . It 
may be that the influence of Erasmus should be traced 
in the fact that his College contributed so large a quota 
to these meetings in the White Horse — " Germany, 1 ' as 
the place came to be called, because the " Germans " 
who resorted thither occupied themselves with Luther's 
writings. Dr. Ffarman is coupled by Fuller (" Univ. of 
Camb.," vi. 33) with Stafford and Thixtill as the chief 
advancers of the Protestant religion. As the chief 
opponents he names Henry Bullock, the friend of 
Erasmus already mentioned, and, mirabile dktu, Hugh 


Latimer, who had not yet been " converted " by Bilney, 
but " exhorted the scholars not to believe one word of 
what Mr. Stafford did read or preach," also the Vice- 
Chancellor Nateres, with the Heads of Colleges generally. 
In the same passage Fuller states of Dr. Ffarman that 
" he concealed and preserved Luther's works sought for 
to be burnt." This was when Wolsey sent to make 
search for Lutheran books and to bring Prior Barnes to 
London (Mullinger, " Univ. of Camb.,'" i. 578). In March 
1528 Ffarman was suspended by the Bishop of London, 
Tunstall, for having Lutheran books in his possession, 
but he died in the autumn of the same year. It is 
clear that he was zealous in spreading the Reformed teach- 
ing : his curate Thomas Garret, who was subsequently 
martyred, spread the works of the Reformers in Oxford, 
and his servant, Geoffry Usher, is recorded as " purchas- 
ing Tyndale's New Testaments and other Lutheran 
books" (Searle, p. 173).* His successor, William 
Frankelyn, was a member of King's College, Chancellor 
and Archdeacon of Durham. He was engaged in affairs 
of state treating for peace with Scotland, in war also, as 
he recovered Norham Castle from the Scots. He became 
Dean of Windsor in 1536, but was forced to resign the 

* Mr. Searle is here followed in the view that Ffarman was really 
President. It is possible that he was only Vice-President acting 
as President during the vacancy. But he was in office so long 
as to make this view difficult to hold. He is mentioned as President 
several times during the years 1526 and 1527 (Searle, p. 173). The 
date at which he ceased to be President, and whether he ceased by 
death or resignation is also not clear. On the whole, all that can 
be said with certainty is that the interval between John Jenyn and 
Simon Heynes is divided between Thomas Ffarman and William 
Frankelyn. Probably we shall 'not be far wrong in assigning them 
Presidentships of something like eighteen months apiece. 


Deanery at the end of 1553. He was President for 
about eighteen months, but " hardly any notices of him 
are to be found in the College books " (Searle, p. 177). 
With the election of Simon Heynes in the beginning of 
the year 1529 the period of the Reformation may be 
said to be fully entered upon. 



" No Italian priest 
Shall tithe or toll in our dominions ; 
But as we, under heaven, are supreme head, 
So, under him, that great supremacy, 
Where we do reign, we will alone uphold, 
Without the assistance of a mortal hand." 

Shakespeare, K. J. iii. i. 

Presidents: Simon Heynes, 1529-37; William Mey, 1537-53; 
William Glynn, 1553-57; Thomas Pecocke, 1557-59; William 
Mey (iterum), 1559-60. 

In the days of storm and stress which followed, it may 
be set down to the credit no less than the good fortune 
of Queens 1 College that those who were appointed to 
govern the foundation were men of conspicuous ability. 
To Dr. Heynes and Dr. Mey must be given a high 
place among the worthies who controlled the course of 
the Reformation movement and helped to establish the 
Church of England upon the via media between the two 
extremes, into one or other of which she might so easily 
have been dragged. Dr. Glynn is hardly less distin- 
guished upon the llomish side than his predecessors 
had been on the side of Reformation. 

Mr. Pecocke is less conspicuous, no doubt, but at least 
there is nothing serious recorded to his discredit at a 


time when few men's characters escaped unscathed, and 
he had hardly been given time to show of what stuff 
he was made, when by the Act of Uniformity Dr. Mey 
was restored, though, like his successor, the Royalist 
Dr. Martin, a century later, he did not live long to enjoy 
his recovered honours. 

But, high as Heynes and Mey stand, as men of 
weight and ability without whose advice and assist- 
ance hardly a single measure of the Reformation 
process was undertaken, the College had a still more 
illustrious son. As scholar, statesman and Church- 
man, equally eminent in all three spheres, Sir Thomas 
Smith, who was elected Fellow in January 1530, a 
year after Simon Heynes became President, combined 
titles to fame which are not often met with in. the 
same person. His rise into repute was singularly rapid. 
He had no sooner taken his M.A. degree than he was 
appointed Greek Professor. In 1538 he was made 
Public Orator. In 1540 he was appointed the first 
Regius Professor of Civil Law. In 1543 he was elected 
Vice-Chancellor, and, though soon afterwards he became 
Clerk to the Queen's Council, his residence continued, 
and he was able to render the University many signal 
services. In many ways Sir Thomas Smith is an excel- 
lent type of the best men of the Elizabethan period, 
and may claim a high rank even among the giants of 
those stirring days. No period of its history was so 
critical for the University as the sixteenth century. Its 
possessions were repeatedly in danger, its very existence 
was threatened at times. Its prosperity suffered sorely 
from the religious changes and the general unsettlement 
of the times. Its members dwindled and its efficiency 


was terribly impaired. Yet in the end the University 
survived all these vicissitudes, and in reputation, wealth 
and numbers reached, in "the spacious days of great 
Elizabeth, 1 '' a point it had never touched before. And 
for this happy result Cambridge is mainly indebted to 
the labours of four great men, who, after the death of 
the great Chancellor, Bishop Fisher, in different ways 
and at different times during the period guided the 
destinies and watched over the fortunes of the Univer- 
sity — viz., Archbishop Parker, Sir Thomas Smith, Lord 
Burghley and Archbishop Whitgift. And if to these 
great names a fifth be added, it would be the name of 
Dr. Perne. Perne was not formed of the stuff of which 
martyrs are made, and his supposed vacillations have 
gained him a dubious notoriety, like that enjoyed by 
the Vicar of Bray.* Yet his services to the University 
admit of no dispute. It may be doubted whether 
throughout these troubled times any man served Cam- 
bridge more wisely, more ungrudgingly and more 
effectually than Andrew Perne. And a member of 
Queens' may, without incurring blame for self-com- 
placency, point with legitimate pride to the fact that of 
these men no less than three, Smith, Whitgift and 
Perne, belonged in some sense to the College. And, 
even if other foundations claim a share in the merits of 
Whitgift and of Perne, no other College can dispute 
with Queens' the possession of Sir Thomas Smith. And 
that is a proud possession, for, in Strype's words (quoted 
by Searle, p. 241) : 

* It was from his name that the University wits of the time 
coined the verb pirno, pemare, which meant, they said, "to change 


" His oratory and learning intermixed was so admirable, 
and beyond the common strain, that Queens' College 
carried away the glory for eloquence from all the Colleges 
besides, and was rendered so famous by this her scholar, 
that it had like to have changed her name from Queens' to 
Smith's College. 

" ' Unius eloquio sic iam Reginea tecta 

Florebant, quasi quae vellent Smithea vocari. 
Sic reliqttos inter socios caput extulit unus.' 

" As Gabriel Harvey, Smith's townsman, and one who 
knew him well, writes upon his death," 

And the names of his contemporaries alone would 
show that Sir Thomas Smith was not a Triton among 
the minnows, but primus inter pares in a Society, which 
Mr. Mullinger, himself a member of St. John's, reckons 
as second only to his own College " among the Cam- 
bridge foundations of this period, when estimated by its 
services to learning " (" Univ. of Camb.,'" ii. 45). 

Thomas Smith was a native of Saffron Walden. He 
seems to have been at the outset poor and friendless. 
In terms of glowing gratitude he records himself, in his 
Second Oration as Professor of Civil Law, the kindness 
and encouragement he had received from Sir William 
Butts, formerly Fellow of Gonville Hall, physician to 
the King, the Dr. Butts of Shakespeare's "King 
Henry VIII." : 

" I was still little more than a boy," he says, " I had no 
hope of friends, I was desperate from my poverty and 
helplessness and already meditated abandoning the Uni- 
versity and letters, when, on account of a report he had 
heard of a disputation of mine in the schools, he summoned 
me to him, quite untrained and unpolished as I was, 


entirely unknown to him, and, so far as I can learn, re- 
commended by no one to him : he bade me not to despair, 
and like a father rather than a patron and friend from 
that day forth gave me every help and encouragement." 

The passage, quoted by Mr. Mullinger (" Univ. of 
Camb.," ii. 45), does equal credit to the discernment of 
the patron and the gratitude of his protege. Smith, of 
Queens 1 , and Cheke, of St. John's, afterwards Sir John 
Cheke, were the two most promising students of the 
day. They were rivals in proficiency, but they were 
close personal friends. When the Regius Professorships 
were founded, in 1540, Smith took the chair of Civil 
Law and left the Greek chair for his friend Cheke. The 
names of the two friends are linked together in their 
famous reform of Greek pronunciation and the curious 
controversy to which it gave rise. There had been 
great changes in the pronunciation of Greek, as of 
Latin, but while the changes in Latin pronunciation 
were marked by corresponding changes in spelling, 
Greek remained in form as it had been in the days of 
the Attic Orators. At the time of the Renaissance 
students had accepted without doubt or inquiry the 
pronunciation they heard from the exiled Greek scholars 
who were their teachers. The discrepancy between 
spelling and pronunciation was first noticed by the acute 
Erasmus, who advocated a reform in his dialogue — 
De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione — 
in 1528. However, the difficulty noted by Erasmus 
was discovered independently by Smith and Cheke. 
While they were busy discussing the matter together, 
a copy of Erasmus' dialogue came into their hands. 


They then agreed that the pronunciation of Greek 
ought to be reformed, and Smith, perhaps as the bolder 
of the two, undertook to introduce the change in such a 
way as to avoid exciting alarm or hostility by too 
violent a break with existing methods. Accordingly 
he gave no notice of his intentions to his class, but 
introduced, as it were by accident, in his lecture a word 
now and then pronounced in accordance with the new 
method. This, says Strype, 

" He did for this end, that if his auditors utterly refused 
his words thus pronounced, then he reckoned he ought to 
defer his purpose for some longer time ; and accordingly 
so he intended to do ; but if they received them with a 
good will, then he would the more speedily go on with his 
innovation. But behold the issue ! At first no notice was 
taken of it ; but when he did it oftener, they began to 
observe, and listen more attentively. And when Smith 
had often inculcated 77 and 01 as E and OI, they, who 
three years before had heard him sound them frequently 
uncorrectly after the old way, could not think it was a 
lapse of his tongue, but suspected something else, and 
laughed at the unusual sounds. He again, as though his 
tongue had slipped, would sometimes correct himself, and 
say the word again after the old manner. But when he 
did this daily, and, as appeared every day, the corrected 
sounds flowed from him more and more, some of his friends 
came to him and told him what they noted in his lectures. 
Smith now cared not to dissemble, but owned then he had 
been thinking of something privately, but that it was not 
yet enough digested and prepared for the public. They, 
on the other hand, prayed him not to conceal it from them, 
but to tell it them without any grudging. Whereupon he 
promised he would. Upon this rumour many came 


together, and repaired to him ; whom he required only 
to hear his reasons, and to have patience with him three or 
four days at most, until the sounds, by use, were made 
more trite to their ears, and the prejudice of novelty more 
worn off. And so by little and little he explained to them 
the whole reason of the sounds " (Life of Sir T. Smith).* 

The reform thus initiated by Smith was followed by 
other teachers of Greek in the University : in his own 
words, "all who were thought to Have any ability 
pronounced in that method." But when Cheke had 
succeeded Smith, and there appeared to be no longer 
any fear of opposition in Cambridge, suddenly there 
came a most unexpected check. Bishop Gardiner, now 
Chancellor, peremptorily ordered a return to the old 
pronunciation (May 1542). The arguments alike of 
Smith, who assumed full responsibility for the change, 
and of Cheke fell upon deaf ears. There was consider- 
able opposition to the Chancellor's decrees, but repeated 
orders and vigorous measures on his part gained him 
the victory for a time. Then with the accession of 
Elizabeth " the new method ,1 came in again, and the 
pronunciation of Erasmus was generally followed, until 
in turn it was superseded by the system still in use. 
The history of the controversy is given in full by Mr. 
Mullinger (" Univ. of Camb.," ii. 54-62). 

Meantime Smith had been at Padua, the great seat 
of the study of Civil Law, the better to prepare himself 
for the duties of his new Professorship. He heard 

* This account of Strype's is based on Smith's own version in his 
treatise " De recta et emendata linguae Graecae pronuntiatione," written 
in 1542 to Bishop Gardiner in defence of what he had done, vide 
infra. See also Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," vi. 7-8. 


there the most famous authorities of the day. He was 
admitted to the degree of doctor of Civil Law, and 
returned to England after an absence of more than a 
year at the end of 1541. The whole system of studying 
law had been reformed by the influence of Alciati. But 
Civil Law was in danger of being drawn into a common 
ruin with the Canon Law, now abolished. Further, 
the increasing importance of the Common Law, and the 
contempt entertained by its practitioners for a study 
which demanded time and labour and offered little 
reward, likewise jeopardised the position of Civil Law as 
a branch of learning. However, in Bishop Gardiner 
Civil Law had a powerful protector. To the desire to 
have an eminent professor, whose fame and ability 
would recommend the study, may be ascribed the 
appointment of a man of Smith's unrivalled reputation 
to the new chair. He delivered two introductory 
lectures, which are highly interesting and characteristic. 
He did not expect to meet with any enthusiasm for the 
study which it now became his duty to promote. So he 
sought to disarm hostility by the story of his own 
experiences. He had himself, he says, entertained so 
profound a dislike for law, that, when he was appointed 
professor, he repeatedly prayed that, if law should 
continue to be as burdensome and hateful as he then 
thought it, he might be released from his position by a 
speedy death. But happily his feelings had changed, 
and distaste had given place to an eagerness to com- 
mence his duties. He was grieved that he could no 
longer continue his Greek lectures, and he was appre- 
hensive that he could win no approbation from such 
students of Civil Law as delighted only in technicalities. 


But such were mistaken in their view. The study of 
law required all the aid of classical learning. He him- 
self had made the range of his reading as wide as 
possible, and without a knowledge of the ancient 
writers on medicine and philosophy, the orators and 
the poets, there were any number of passages in the 
Pandects which could not be understood. It would be 
a mistake to suppose that his study of law was a new 
thing. He had pursued it vigorously since he became a 
Master of Arts ; he had recently visited the French Uni- 
versities and heard the greatest of the Italian professors. 
He had at least acquired their methods. Then he in- 
formed his audience of the course he proposed to adopt, 
and asked them to give him their best attention, and 
to devote adequate time to the subject. The second 
lecture, delivered the next day, dilates upon the benefits 
to be derived from the study. Many had gone forth 
from .Cambridge, who, by devoting themselves to Civil 
Law, had rendered the highest services to the State. 
Such were Gardiner, Thirlby and Butts. The King him- 
self, who was so liberal in promoting learning, com- 
plained that good lawyers were few. To the theologian 
the study was indispensable. And, though the ordinary 
English lawyer was most inadequately trained, he showed 
a shrewd mother- wit and a dialectical skill worthy of 
all praise. The English student had a great advantage, 
because of the purity and precision of his mother- 
tongue. Nothing could be of greater interest than 
legal studies when properly pursued ; the greatest 
scholars had enriched and enlarged their command of 
language by studying the Digest (Baker, MSS. xxxvii.; 
Mullinger, "Univ. of Camb.," ii. 129-132). 


Two years later (1543-44) Thomas Smith was Vice- 
Chancellor. To his tenure of the office belongs the Statute 
for the matriculation and registration of students. 
Previously the Head of the College had administered an 
oath to every student above fourteen years of age, by 
which he bound himself to preserve the interests of the 
University, to keep the peace, and obey the authorities. 
But by the Statute of 1544 it was required that the 
student should give the Registrary his name, his tutor's 
name, and his College, and that, if he was of mature 
age, he should bind himself by the following oath, 
on which, it will be seen, the Declaration now made at 
matriculation, has been based : 

" The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University 
of Cambridge, so far forth as is lawful and right, and ac- 
cording to the rank in which I shall be, as long as I shall 
dwell in this republic, I will courteously obey. The laws, 
statutes, approved customs and privileges of the university, 
as much as in me is, I will observe. The advancement of 
piety and good letters, and the state honour and dignity 
of this university I will maintain as long as I live, and with 
my suffrage and counsel, asked and unasked, will defend. 
So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God " (Cooper, 
" Ann.," i. 413). 

The name of Sir Thomas Smith will appear again in 
connexion with various events in which he played a 
part. Meanwhile it is time to return to the history of 
the College as a whole, during the period under con- 
sideration. On the vacancy caused by the resignation 
of William Frankelyn, in January 1529, Simon Heynes, 
who had been a Fellow since 1516, but had recently 


been presented to the Rectory of Barrow, Suffolk, was 
elected eighth President. Heynes had been the 
chief agent of the College in the complaints preferred 
against Dr. Jenyn. That the agreement made between 
Heynes and the College, as described in the last chapter, 
pledging Heynes not to do what Jenyn had done, was 
not due to any want of confidence in the integrity of 
the new President appears from the extraordinary powers 
conferred by the Fellows on this Master by an order of 
the following month, February 1529. These powers 
enable him by virtue of his office to lease or set forth to 
farm all such lands belonging to the College as he 
should think convenient, for as many years, at such 
fines and with such covenants as he should think 
proper ; and also to fix such fines for copyhold lands as 
he should deem fit, and to sell such woods as he should 
judge desirable, provided thab the said President read 
the indentures to the Society before they were sealed. 
They give him power likewise to make bargains for lands 
to be purchased for the College, to order all repairs, 
and in general they commit to him the making of all 
bargains and covenants for the College, and the allow- 
ing or disallowing of all bills, promising to ratify and 
approve whatever he shall do in these matters. This 
agreement is signed by the President and eight Fellows. 
It is important to note that these large powers are 
given only " to the President now being," i.e., the powers 
are restricted to Mr. Heynes, and are clearly intended 
as an exceptional measure to place the affairs of the 
College on a better footing. In exercise of the author- 
ity thus conferred, the President, in 1530, sold the 
College estate at Gilden Morden, and in 1534 the 


estates given by the Lady Alicia Wyche in Holbeach, 
Whaplode and Muldon, in Lincolnshire. In 1535 he 
sold to Benet (i.e., Corpus Christi) College, St. Bernard's 
Hostel, of which William Sowode was then Master, for 
one hundred marks. This sale seems to have been part 
of a transaction between the two Colleges for mutual 
accommodation : for about the same time Benet College 
sold to Queens 1 part of the ground on which its Alms- 
houses stood in Silver Street. The general plan pursued 
was to get rid of property which had been a source of loss 
to the College. Thus, in consequence of heavy repairs, 
the property in the town left by William Syday had 
been unproductive and the stipend of his Fellow paid 
out of other revenue. The property was now (1529) 
sold for ,£80 and land bought producing J?4 per annum, 
and the socius sacerdos changed to a socius non saeerdos. 
This was done by the authorisation of Pope Clement 
VII., who confirmed the Statutes in this year. This 
confirmation by the Pope was rather an expensive 
luxury. " For the diploma of the Lord Pope Clement 
for the confirmation of the Statutes" there was paid 
£& 6s. 8d., and there are items for calf-skin, parchment, 
books, copying, and the like, which amount to another 
£3 10s. (Searle, pp. 188, 189). 

In 1530 Henry VIII. had caught at Cranmer , s sug- 
gestion that the validity of his marriage with Catharine 
should be submitted to the Universities. No steps were 
left untried to secure a verdict favourable to the King's 
wishes. The University of Cambridge was directed to 
send a decision under the common seal, and the King 
hinted very plainly what that decision ought to be. 
Opinions were greatly divided, and it was plain that a 


decision in the sense desired by the King would not be 
easily obtained. Accordingly Stephen Gardiner, Master 
of Trinity Hall, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, the 
King's Secretary, and Edward Fox, Provost of King's, 
afterwards Bishop of Hereford, Almoner to the King, 
were sent to secure a favourable decision from the Uni- 
versity. After some negotiations the matter was referred 
to a syndicate of twenty-nine, with the proviso that the 
decision of the majority should be regarded as the 
decision of the University. The royal envoys reported 
proceedings to the King. They sent him a list of the 
twenty-nine delegates, marking those who were known 
to be favourable with the letter A. Simon Heynes was 
one of the delegates, and he is duly marked A. (Cooper, 
"Ann.," i. 337-339). 

Heynes proceeded D.D. in 1531 and held the office of 
Vice-Chancellor for the two years 1532-1534. His 
tenure of office was eventful. In his first year he was 
called upon to attest Archbishop Cranmer's dissolution 
of the King's marriage with Catharine of Aragon. In 
the next academical year, after a curious riot about the 
election of Proctors (Cooper, " Ann.," i. 362), he went to 
Court to procure from the King the confirmation of the 
privileges of the University, and was sent back to preach 
against the authority of the Pope and in support of 
the royal supremacy. The formal declaration of the 
University (May 2, 1534), that the Pope had "no 
greater authority or jurisdiction over this kingdom of 
England granted him by God than any other foreign 
bishop," was probably sent to the King by the hands of 
the Vice-Chancellor. 

In the same year, 1534, was passed the Act of 


Parliament which gave to the Crown the first fruits 
and tenths of all ecclesiastical property. In conse- 
quence of this Act all ecclesiastical property was valued 
by commissioners. In the survey of the diocese 
of Ely the valuation of the Colleges is given. The 
wealthiest College is King's, valued at i?751, St. John's 
comes next at =£"507, and Queens' stands third on the 
list at £9£0. This Act pressed heavily upon the 
University, and at Queens' the number of Fellows in 
orders was reduced from twelve to ten. The tenths 
were to be paid by the College, the first fruits by the 
incoming Fellow. Mr. Searle quotes the College order, 
p. 191, which affirms that "the house cannot sustain the 
old accustomed number of priest fellows and scholars 
with other charges and also pay the said tenth part." 
Thomas Cromwell was now Chancellor of the University. 
His earliest connexion with Cambridge dates no further 
back than 1532, when he had done good service in 
securing the privileges of the University against the 
town, and on Lord Mountjoy's death he had been 
elected Lord High Steward. His grim note, made 
months before the Bishop's death, "Item: when 
Master Fisher shall to his execution," illustrates his 
relentless policy. It is also a curious instance of the 
rapid changes which were taking place, that Cromwell 
succeeded his victim as Chancellor. " The University 
made Cromwell Chancellor to save itself" (see also 
Fuller, "Univ. of Camb.," vi. 53). In 1535 came the 
Royal Injunctions to the University. Homage to the 
Crown replaced homage to Rome. The Canon Law 
was suppressed. Professors were to teach the Old and 
New Testament according to the true sense thereof, and 


students were allowed to study the Bible in private. 
The Colleges were to institute daily lectures in Latin 
and Greek, to put aside the scholastic interpreters of 
Aristotle, and to use instead more recent and reasonable 
expositors. At the same time Cromwell, as the King's 
deputy, became Visitor of the University. But Crom- 
well, too busy to discharge the office in person, in turn 
appointed a deputy, the notorious Dr. Thomas Legh 
(Fuller, " Univ. ofCamb.," vi. 55). The University and 
Colleges were directed before the Feast of the Purifica- 
tion (February 2, 1536) to deliver their respective 

" charters of foundation, donation or appropriation, 
statutes, constitutions, pontifical bulls, and other diplomas 
and papistical muniments, with a full rental of their im- 
moveable property and a true inventory of their moveable 
goods into the hands of Master Thomas Cromwell, or of 
his deputy for the purpose, to await his good pleasure." 

Accordingly the Papal authority was renounced and 
the King's supremacy acknowledged, and all charters 
and statutes, with the rental of lands and the inventory 
of goods, were sent to the Visitor. No doubt this was a 
severe test to the University's powers of submission. 
And lest the loyalty of the Universities should be tried 
too far, in 1536 a most important concession was made 
in their favour — viz., the remission of the tenths and 
first fruits, which in 1534 had been appropriated to the 
Crown. The agents of the University of Cambridge in 
securing this Bill were the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Crayford, 
formerly Fellow of Queens', and the senior Proctor, 
Ralph Ainsworth, of Peterhouse. 

To the Mastership of Dr. Heynes belongs the visit to 


Cambridge or Alexander Alane, the Scotch Reformer, in 
1534. He came by invitation of Cranmer and Cromwell : 
he held the status of " King's scholar " and his office was 
to lecture on the Scriptures, with the purpose of teaching 
his hearers the theology of the German Reformers. He 
joined Queens' College, and was delighted with his 
surroundings — habui iucundissimum sodalithim in collegio 
RegmcB is his own expression. But he could not get 
his money from Cromwell, his teaching was not accept- 
able to his auditors, and, finding that the Vice-Chancellor 
(Crayford) sided with his opponents, he quitted the 
University for London. 

In 1537 a dispute between the College and the Car- 
melites ended, as narrated in chapter i., in the purchase 
of the boundary wall by the College. Dr. Heynes was 
now increasingly employed on royal business. He had 
been sent in 1535 to try to bring Melancthon to 
England. He became Canon of Windsor and Rector 
of Fulham, and shortly before he was made Dean of 
Exeter, on the deprivation of Reginald Pole, in June 
1537, he resigned the Presidentship of Queens'. Like 
his successor, Dr. Mey, he was one of the compilers of 
the Prayer Book of 1549 ; he was one of the commis- 
sioners for inquiring into heretical depravity, and again 
for visiting the University of Oxford, and lived till 
nearly the end of Edward VI.'s short reign. Sir Thomas 
Smith, who must have known him intimately, in his 
Second Oration, referred to above, in praising the King 
for his wise promotions instances the case of Heynes as 
" a man of remarkable integrity, piety and liberality to 
the studious." 

The ninth President, Dr. Mey, was even an abler man 


than his friend and predecessor, Dr. Heynes. William 
Mey was a Fellow of Trinity Hall. He had taken his 
LL.D. degree in 1530. He was a friend of some of the 
men who had met at the White Horse, and, even if he 
was not himself a frequenter of those meetings, his 
opinions were unmistakably those of a Reformer. He 
rose into eminence as a lawyer. His name does not 
appear among the Fellows of Queens 1 , but he was 
employed to obtain the Papal confirmation of the 
Statutes in 1529. He was Chancellor to Bishop West 
of Ely, and a great favourite with his successor, Bishop 
Goodrich. He was in London with Dr. Heynes, then 
Vice-Chancellor, in 1533, and brought letters from him 
to the University. 

Dr. Mey was appointed by Archbishop Cranmer his 
Commissary for visiting the diocese of Norwich in 1534. 
He was ordained subdeacon, deacon and priest all at 
once by Bishop Goodrich in 1536. In 1537 he was 
appointed one of the commissioners who produced " The 
Institution of a Christian Man," " the great dogmatical 
document of the Reformation, 1 ' " a noble endeavour on 
the part of the Bishops to promote unity and to 
instruct the people in Church doctrine " (Blunt, " Hist, 
of Ref."). In 1546 he was made Dean of St. Paul's. 
He shared with Dr. Heynes and Dr. John Taylor, 
formerly Fellow of Queens', the honour of being a 
compiler of the Prayer Book. There was hardly a 
commission on which he did not sit, scarcely a measure 
passed in which he took no part. In Downes' words 
(" Lives," p. cxxxv.), " he was well skilled in the consti- 
tution both of Church and State, and there was scarce 
any considerable step taken towards the reformation of 


the prevailing corruptions and abuses without consulting 
his opinions. 1 " Such was the man who became President 
of Queens 1 in 1537. He would probably have been 
welcomed as the Head of any College, and his appoint- 
ment was a most happy choice. It may be conjectured, 
in lack of definite evidence on the point, that the 
resigning President secured the choice of a successor so 
eminently able to uphold the opinions which they shared 
in common. 

The first important event of his Mastership was the 
acquisition by the College of the ground belonging to 
the Carmelites. The steps by which the site was 
acquired — viz., the surrender by the Prior and Friars, 
the King's warrant to Dr. Daye, Provost of King's 
College, Dr. Mey, Richard Wilkes, and Thomas Smith, 
Fellows of Queen's College in 1538, the purchase of the 
materials of the Convent for ,£20 in 1541, and finally 
of the site for ,£'36 in 1544, have been related in chapter i. 
It need only be added here, that the inventory taken in 
accordance with the King's warrant shows that the 
Carmelites were very poor, unless, indeed, in view of the 
impending dissolution the more valuable of their 
belongings had been quietly removed; that a part of 
the ground was purchased by King's College ; and that 
the glass in five windows on the north side in the 
Library of Queens' College seems to have been brought 
from the Carmelite Convent. 

"They are each of two lights, and are glazed with 
quarries of various patterns, while in the upper part of 
each light is inserted the head of a Carmelite Friar. A 
narrow border of red and blue glass runs round each light- 


There are fragments of inscriptions inserted in the border " 
(Searle, p. 233). 

When the College had ascertained the willingness of 
the Carmelites to surrender, a letter (August 8, 1538) 
was addressed to Cromwell, as the King's Secretary, 
asking that the site might be granted them. The letter 
is given by Mr. Searle ("Additions," &c. vi.) and is 
probably the composition of Sir Thomas Smith. After 
a captatio benevolentiae addressed to Cromwell in terms 
sufficiently flattering, the letter continues : 

" There is a convent of Carmelites adjoining our College. 
It is small, and has been diminished by the recent sale of 
part of the ground to King's College. Owing to the 
decline of false religion and the consequent failure of the 
revenues got by mendicancy the Friars have nearly all left 
the house. Only a few are left, who do keep up the name 
of a convent somehow, but even these, as they can no 
longer maintain themselves or keep a roof over their heads, 
would gladly, with the royal permission, retire. We have 
no doubt therefore that the King's Majesty will soon con- 
vert the convent to better uses. If the King would grant 
the convent to some College, especially our College, 
although the ground is not very extensive, it will be a 
great acquisition to us and His Majesty will confer a favour 
on the University, will grant what is essential to us and 
will perhaps not be unpleasing to the King and his de- 
scendants. For whenever royalty has come to Cambridge, 
it has almost invariably stayed in our College, because the 
College lies away from the noise of the town, because it is 
near the river, or because it is pleasantly situated. Ac- 
cordingly, if the ground shall become the site of a granary 
or a tanyard, it may be an annoyance to the College and a 


nuisance to royalty. But if it is assigned to the College, 
to which it is most necessary, we shall not only rejoice 
endlessly in the grant for our own sakes, but shall also be 
mightily pleased, because we hope that royalty also will 
reap some benefit from the grant." 

It is pleasant to think that this naive letter, with the 
reasons so artlessly set forth why the boon asked should 
be granted, did not fail of its purpose. It is amusing to 
find that the success of Queens 1 College in the matter 
encouraged the University to follow the example thus 
set. They also plead that they may have a share in the 
spoil of the Monasteries : they beg that the houses, out 
of which " swarms of drones and throngs of impostors 
used to issue," may be converted into Colleges, the 
homes " of young men distinguished by their aptitude 
for learning, or of older men well qualified for preach- 
ing. 1 ' In particular, the University was anxious to 
secure the once fine buildings of the Franciscans, where 
a Parliament had sat in the time of Richard II. The 
King was not unfavourable, but he was developing other 
views, and the issue was the foundation of Trinity 
College (see Mullinger, "Univ. of Camb., 11 ii. 25 ff.). 

The immediate result of the dissolution of the 
Monasteries was a very serious decline in the numbers 
of the University. And while the renunciation of the 
Papal authority, which was now required, excluded all 
strict Romanists, the Six Articles were no less an 
obstacle to many of Reforming views. Nevertheless the 
tone of the University had greatly improved, and the 
standard of scholarship was much higher than it had 
been. Instruction was now more regular and systematic, 


and the five Regius Professorships were founded in 1540. 
But an uneasy feeling prevailed. It was thought that 
the Universities would soon share the fate of the 
Monasteries. And how well founded these fears were 
became plain, when there was passed the " Act for the 
Dissolution of Colleges.'" At this crisis Sir Thomas 
Smith was able to render the University priceless 
service. He was Clerk of the Queen's Council. His 
friend Cheke was tutor to Prince Edward. The 
University turned for aid to their influence and their 
talents, and Smith was entrusted with a petition to the 
Queen (Katharine Parr) imploring her intercession with 
the King. 

" The evidence," says Mr. Mullinger (" Univ. of Camb.," 
ii. 78), " is such as to leave little doubt that it was to Smith's 
exertions that Cambridge, at this juncture, was indebted 
for its escape from imminent peril. A Commission could 
not indeed be altogether averted, but he dexterously con- 
trived, under the plea of relieving the University from 
heavy and unnecessary expense, that it should not be 
saddled with the cost of an enquiry conducted by any of 
the Court officers, but that the proposed task of reporting 
on the revenues of the Colleges and the manner in which 
they were expended, should be confided to some of its 
own members, whose experience and character would 
afford a guarantee of their efficiency and good faith." 

This was indeed drawing the sting from the Com- 
mission. The University could look forward with 
confidence to the result of the inquiry, when the work 
was entrusted to members of its own of " notable vertue, 
lerning and knowledge," in the persons of Dr. Parker, 
Dr. Redman and Dr. Mey. 


These three Commissioners set to work at once. 
Their powers were dated January 16, 1546, and their 
report was completed before the end of February. The 
most striking feature brought out by the survey was 
the poverty of the University. Of the fifteen founda- 
tions, two only, King's and St. John's, had an annual 
income of more than £500. Queens' and Michael 
House were the only two where the expenditure was 
not considerably in excess of the income. The revenue 
of Queens' College is returned as £272 2*. 7£d. The 
President received £3 6s. 8d., £3 16*. 8d. for his 
commons, and an allowance of £6 for his horses. The 
seventeen Fellows in Priest's Orders had £6 13s. M. 
each for stipend, commons and livery ; four Fellows not 
in Orders £3 18*. ; six poor scholars, or Bible-clerks, 
and the Master's scholar £9, 12*. apiece. The 
butler had £2 12*., the head-cook 33s. 4d. for 
stipend and livery and £2 12s. for commons, the 
under-cook 20*. for stipend and livery and £2 12*. 
for commons, the Master's servant £2 12s. for 
commons. The Divinity lecturer received 40*., the 
Rhetoric lecturer 40*., the Greek lecturer 40*., the 
Dean 6s. 8d., and bread, wine, wax &c, for the Chapel 
cost 40*. a year on the average. The steward's fee was 
20*., the auditor's and the bursar's 26*. 8d. apiece. The 
exsequies celebrated annually for all the benefactors 
cost £3 14*., exsequies for particular benefactors and 
money distributed to the poor on these occasions 
£19 17*. lid., and £1 ,6s. 8d. was paid for annual 
sermons founded by Mr. Lasby. The ordinary expenses 
of the College are — sizings £3, surplices, utensils and 
stores £4i, pleas and expenses of accounts and courts 


£6 13s. id., repairs of the College and on the property 
£35, and extraordinary expenses =£13 6s. 8d. The 
total expenditure amounts to £273 is. Id. and exceeds 
the receipts by £1 Is. llfd. (Cooper, " Ann.," i. 431 ; 
" Documents relating to the University and Colleges of 
Cambridge," 1852, vol. i. pp. 212-226). 

Archbishop Parker has left in his own handwriting 
(" Parker Correspondence, 1 ' pp. 35-60, quoted by Mullin- 
ger, " Univ. of Camb.," ii. 79) an account of the King's 
comments on the report and his decision. " He thought 
he had not in his realm so many persons so honestly 
maintained in living by so little land and rent." Henry 
then inquired why the expenditure exceeded the revenue, 
and was told that "it rose partly of fines for leases and 
indentures of the farmers renewing their leases, partly 
of wood sales." On this he observed, "pity it were 
these lands should be altered to make them worse." " At 
which words," says the Archbishop, " some were grieved 
for that they disappointed lupos quosdam Mantes " [i.e., 
the courtiers who had hoped to get the lands]. In the 
end, the King promised "to force the University no 
further," and the Commissioners departed happy. And 
so the danger was overpast. Thanks largely to Sir 
Thomas Smith, the hands of the spoiler had been kept 
from the University. 

After the accession of Edward VI. a fresh Commission 
to visit the University, with power to amend and alter 
the Statutes of the Colleges (Cooper, " Ann.," ii. 24), was 
issued to Bishops Goodrich (Ely) and Ridley (Rochester), 
Sir William Paget, Comptroller of the Household, Sir 
Thomas Smith, Secretary of State, Sir John Cheke, 
Dr. Mey, Dean of St. Paul's and President of Queens', 


and Dr. Wendy, the King's Physician. The Visitors 
brought a new code of Statutes with them, and after 
their visitation they issued some additional Statutes, 
under the name of Injunctions, to the University. 
Among other things these Commissioners were em- 
powered "to dissolve two or more Colleges in the 
University and on their site or in other fit places to 
found and erect a College of Civil Law," and "to 
constitute a Medical College in some other fit place in 
the University by assigning one of the Colleges for the 
study of Medicine." These intentions were not carried 
out, although it was proposed to unite Clare and 
Trinity Hall for the former purpose. However, the 
project was frustrated by the determined resistance of 
the former Society. The Commissioners commenced their 
work on Monday, May 6, 1549, by listening to a sermon 
at Great St. Mary's from Bishop Ridley. They then 
went to King's College Chapel, where their commission 

' was read, and the books, statutes and lists required by 
it were duly handed in to them. Sir John Cheke 
produced the Book of New Statutes " synged with the 
Kynges hand and subscrybed with the cownsell : he red 
every word therein and delivered it unto the Vyce- 
chancellor." The Bishop of Ely ended the proceed- 
ings by 

" a short proposition wherein among other he dyd chefflye 
exhorte all men to be obedyent unto the Kynges proceed- 
ings, and to renownce all papystrye and superstytyon, and 
to bryng in bylls every man of all thynges worthy re- 
formacon, as well in the universyte and colleges as of 
every private person." 


On the following day the visitation of the Colleges 
began. Queens' was visited May 20, when the Statutes 
of 1529 were revised. The work did not take long : 
" on the Munday which was the xxth day thei sate at 
the Quenes college and made an ende and supped 
ther." It appears from the accounts that their supper 
cost £4< 12*. Id. In the disputations, which took 
place before and by order of the Visitors, the members 
of the College played a prominent part. The first 
subject proposed was, that " Transubstantiation could 
not be proved by Scripture, nor be confirmed by the 
consent of ancient fathers for a thousand years past." 
Dr. Glynn, ex-Fellow and soon to be President, 
opposed; and on the subject of the Lord's Supper he 
and Andrew Perne, Fellow, afterwards Master of Peter- 
house, who subsequently was one of the three who 
challenged Bucer, were ranged on opposite sides (Cooper, 
"Ann.," ii. 31). The Visitation terminated July 4, 
and the Injunctions made by the Visitors were read at 
a Congregation, July 5. But Bishop Goodrich, Cheke, 
Mey and Wendy still had to prepare the first Statutes 
of Trinity College (Mullinger, " Univ. of Camb.," ii. 

In 1550, for the better preservation of order during 
Stourbridge Fair, the Colleges are directed to supply a 
night watch. Twenty-four men are to be provided : 
King's, Trinity and St. John's furnish four each, 
Christ's three, and Queens' two ; the other Colleges are 
grouped together in pairs to supply the remainder. 
These men are to be sent nightly 

" in redynes harneshed and weponed, before the bell of 


St. Johns at viii of the clock be ceased, in defawt whereof 
every Colege in whom such defawt shal be, to paye to the 
Proctours xii d wherewith to fynd other in their romys. 
Item, that over and beyond the said nombre, the said 
Colleges have in a redynes other xxiiii according to the 
rate aforesaid " (Cooper, " Ann.," ii. 48). 

Stourbridge Fair in those days, when such an armed 
force was required, was an event almost of national 
importance. The present decayed condition gives no 
adequate conception of its glories in earlier days. 

Dr. Mey, constantly employed on Commissions, sent 
on royal business and acting as Master in the Court of 
Requests, could have been little in Cambridge at this 
time. Various incidental references show that he was 
busy as Dean of St. Paul's. When Mary succeeded her 
brother on the throne, Dr. Mey was in London. Bishop 
Gardiner resumed office as Chancellor of the University, 
the old Statutes were directed to be restored, Dr. Wat- 
son, Gardiner's chaplain, was sent to Cambridge and 
visited Queens' with the other Colleges at the end of 
August, 1553. The Vice-President, Stokes, and John 
Bernard, a Fellow, were sent to the President in 
London ad perquirenda antiqua statuta collegii. These 
were the Statutes of 1529. The President had been 
examined by the Queen's Commissioners before the 
envoys could reach him ; the Mass was restored in 
St. Paul's on September 1, and before the end of the 
year " such divine service as was commonly used in the 
last year of Henry VIII. and none other " was directed 
to be used. Before the year closed Dr. Mey had 
ceased to be President. There is nothing to show whether 


he bowed to the inevitable, and resigned, like Dr. Parker, 
" in a kind of necessity," or whether he was deprived 
because he was married. For five years he lived in 
retirement. But he was destined to be restored to his 
Mastership and to sit on yet another University Com- 
mission. With three exceptions (Gonville, Jesus, 
Magdalene) every College in Cambridge received a new 
Head. Queens 1 College was fortunate in that the new 
President was a distinguished former member of the 
Society, who, though he was a strong Roman Catholic, 
was a scholar and no persecutor. William Glynn was 
elected Fellow in 1530. He filled several College offices 
in the next ten years (Searle, p. 245). He became 
D.D., was elected Lady Margaret's Professor and re- 
signed his fellowship in 1544. On the foundation of 
Trinity College in 1546 he was appointed a Fellow 
and was the first Vice-Master. He had resigned his 
Professorship, from which he had been inhibited, in 
1549. But he held other preferments, and was chap- 
lain to Thirlby, then Bishop of Norwich. His election 
to be President of Queens 1 was probably December 5, 

In 1554 the Convocation of Canterbury sent letters 
to the University containing propositions on the nature 
of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, about which it 
was intended to hold a disputation at Oxford with 
Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. The University approved 
the propositions, and, as the accused prelates . were 
members of the University, it was resolved to send 
delegates to the discussion to defend the propositions 
and use all means to induce the three Reformers to 
assent to the doctrines in question. Dr. Glynn was 


one of the delegates sent, and, though he was an old 
friend of Ridley, he is accused of having been somewhat 
rough with him (Fox, vi. 491, quoted by Searle, p. 247). 
However he took no part in the discussions with 
Cranmer and Latimer. He was Vice-Chancellor for the 
year 1554-55, but was sent early in 1555 on an embassy 
to the Pope to obtain confirmation of all that Cardinal 
Pole had done in the Pope's name. Immediately after 
his return he was consecrated Bishop of Bangor. He 
continued to be President for two years after this, but 
he was for the most part engaged with his Welsh 
diocese, and it appears probable that his resignation 
was due to his inability to attend to his duties in 
Cambridge. Perhaps he may have felt that he was not 
doing the College justice, or found that his non-residence 
caused dissatisfaction and therefore removed himself 
from a false position. Whichever be the true explana- 
tion, he did resign about September 1557, and died 
May 21, 1558. Fuller's high estimate of him seems to 
have been well deserved : 

"An excellent scholar, and as I have been assured by 
judicious persons, who have seriously perused the solemn 
disputations (printed in Master Fox) betwixt the Papists 
and Protestants, that none of the farmer pressed his argu- 
ments with more strength and less passion than Dr. Glynn : 
though constant to his own, he was not cruel to opposite 
judgments, as appeareth by the appearing of no persecu- 
tion in his diocese ; and his mild nature must be allowed 
to be at least causa soda or the fellow cause thereof" 
(" Worthies of Anglesea "). 

On the death of Bishop Gardiner, Cardinal Pole 
became Chancellor, and a general visitation of the 


University and Colleges was ordered at the beginning 
of 1557. A full account of the proceedings written by 
John Mere, Registrary and Esquire Bedell, has been 
preserved. After the Mass of the Holy Ghost in King's 
College Chapel on January 11 the Visitors went to Great 
St. Mary's, where the sermon was preached by Thomas 
Pecocke, B.D., " inveying against heresyes and heretyckes 
as Bylney, Latamer, Cranmer, Rydley, &c." Many days 
were spent in the shameful posthumous proceedings 
against Bucer and Fagius, whose bodies were burnt with 
"a greate sorte of bookes that were condemned with 
theym." The visitation of Queens' took place on 
January 18. Here is Mere's account : 

" The vysyters came to the Quenes college half houre 
before vii, and in the gate howse a forme sett with carpet 
and cushyns, w[h]en fyrst the President [i.e., Dale, the 
Vice-President, Dr. Glynn, the President was absent] re- 
ceyved them with holy water and sensinge in a cope and 
all the company in surplesses with crosses and candlestycks. 
After that they went to the Chapell processionaUter and 
had masse of the Holy Ghost songe, which done they sit- 
ting styll in the stalles the President delivered the certifi- 
cat of all the companyes names and I [John Mere] called 
them, and then they wente upp to the awlter and so to the 
vestrye perusinge all thinge as they did at the King's 
college. Then thei wente to the master's lodgyngs and 
there sate in examination untill x, at what tyme the Vice- 
chancellor came and fet them to St. Maryes." 

But Dr. Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and Dr. Cole 
" remayned styll at the Quenes college and there dyned 
and continued tyll affter iiii. of the clocke." This 
dinner is made the ground of a great complaint against 


the Visitors by Fox (viii. 273, quoted by Searle p. 
254). He relates that they had ordered only three 
kinds of meat at most to be prepared for them, that at 
Queens' a capon more than was prescribed was brought 
up, when they thrust it away in great displeasure. 

" These thriving men, that were so sore moved for the 
preparing of one capon, within little more than one month, 
beside their private refections, wasted in their daily diet 
well nigh a hundred pounds of the common charges of the 
colleges, so that the university may worthily allege against 
them this saying of our Saviour, ' Woe unto you that strain 
out a gnat and swallow up a camel.' " 

This seems a little unfair, for whereas the supper of 
Edward's Commissioners cost £4i 12s. Id. this dinner is 
entered in the books as costing £1 18s. 10^d. Fox's "nigh 
a hundred pounds," £82 10s. 4<d., was raised by a rate of 
4<d. in the pound. The share paid by this College was 
£4> 10s. Od. The Visitors came to the College again 
on February 8 and February 12. Their object was to 
ascertain how far the Statutes of 1529 were observed. 
The Fellows were examined separately, and their answers 
are preserved in the Parker MSS. and given at length 
by Mr. Searle, pp. 256-260. It appears therefrom 
that the College consisted of a President, eleven Fellows, 
of whom only three were priests, nine scholars — six not 
on the foundation — two cooks and two servants. The* 
President and seven Fellows were absent. Whether 
this was by consent or not is a disputed point. The 
Vice-President Dale declares that they have the assent 
of the maj ority. The next witness, Hausoppe ( Alsoppe), 
maintains that the President is absent without the 


consent of the Fellows and does not perform his duty in 
carrying out the Statutes. He has been repeatedly 
urged by the senior Fellows to force the juniors to take 
Priests 1 Orders according to the Statute, but has not 
done so. This evidence may throw some light on Bishop 
Glynn's reasons for resigning. His unwillingness to put 
pressure on the juniors to take orders is quite in keeping 
with " his mild nature. 11 The evidence discloses various 
petty irregularities. The most serious piece of laxity 
evidenced is that John Mey, Dr. Mey's brother, who 
had been Bursar, was indebted to the College to the 
amount of ,£40. John Mey became Master of 
St. Catharine's and Bishop of Carlisle, but he does not 
appear to advantage at this period. Two of the Fellows, 
Robinson and Joscelyn, are agreed to have been thrust 
in irregularly by the Edwardian Visitors. Joscelyn was 
removed, as was Longworth, afterwards Master of 
St. John's. Robinson, afterwards Bishop of Bangor, 
John Mey, and Igulden took Priest's Orders soon 
afterwards. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is in this case a 
safe assumption to make. The evidence as a whole 
reveals a state of discord and division, which is un- 
edifying, but perhaps not surprising in view of the 
utter unsettlement of the time. 

Thomas Pecocke, B.D., who had preached before the 
Visitors, became President about October 1557. He 
was a native of Cambridge, had been Fellow of 
St. John's, held several livings and a canonry, first at 
Norwich, then at Ely, and was chaplain to Bishop 
Thirlby. He was a man of some prominence on the 
Roman Catholic side, and probably his election was 
urged, if not forced, upon the College. The chief 


event of his short tenure of office was a wretched 
squabble about elections to Fellowships. The President 
with a majority (six) of the Fellows pressed the election 
of three men, Harnesse, Hyndmer and Welles, all 
members of other foundations. It can hardly be 
doubted that the object of the majority was to make 
the most of their opportunities and fill the vacancies, 
before the Marian policy had been reversed, with men 
favourable to the Romanist view. However, the Vice- 
President and four Fellows protested loudly against the 
election of three persons " by common fame most 
unworthie in all the tounne, not knowen or sene ever 
before to us," and accused the President " with his crew 
of gamblers and bankrupts'" of gross misgovernment 
and the basest motives. Both parties appealed to Sir 
William Cecil, who had accepted the Chancellorship on 
Cardinal Pole's death. Cecil rebuked both parties with 
dignity on their unworthy attitude. The matter was 
referred by him to the decision of Dr. Pory, the Vice- 
Chancellor, Dr. Parker and Mr. Leedes. The whole 
correspondence, in which Sir Thomas Smith took part, 
will be found in Searle, pp. 268-283. In the end the 
arbitrators assured themselves that two of the three 
persons were satisfactory, and authorised Pecocke to 
admit them. Wretched as the whole controversy 
appears, there are two points of some interest in the 
correspondence. The first is the admission by the 
President and his party of the unsatisfactory condition 
of affairs to which the Marian reaction had reduced the 
University. The second point is that the Chancellor 
consulted his friends Sir Thomas Smith and Dr. Mey 
on the state of their College, and learned from Sir 


Thomas Smith " that Mr. Pecocke now presidente of the 
said colledg is fully minded to gyve over his interest 
and title in the same to Doctor Mey," " which thing, 17 
continues Cecil, " I like very well. 7 ' 

These proceedings took place in March and April, 
1559. In May, according to the intention ascribed to 
him by Sir Thomas Smith, Mr. Pecocke quietly retired. 
He lived apparently in the town, and was alive in 1581. 
A grant of £4< is made to him by vote of the President 
and Fellows, June 1559. So it may be hoped that 
they parted in peace and amity. Dr. Mey was restored 
without opposition. He had lived in retirement during 
Mary's reign, but he had not been far from Cambridge. 
The expense of sending a servant with the old Statutes 
from his residence to the College was only 6d. His 
rooms in the College seem to have been kept for him, 
even if they were not occupied by him. And there 
would be no difficulty in this. For some years there 
had not been the full number of Fellows. Dr. Mey had 
lost the Deanery of St. Paul's and the Presidentship. 
But he seems to have retained his canonry at Ely and 
he was preferred to livings during Mary's reign (Searle, 
p. 286). The inference is that he did not leave 
England. Had he done so, a man of his mark would 
certainly have been named among the exiles at Strass- 
burg, Zurich, Frankfort, or elsewhere. In June 1559 
he was again President and Dean of St. Paul's. He 
was one of the seven divines who, with Sir Thomas 
Smith, revised the Prayer Book of 1552, which, after 
their revision, was enforced by the Act of Uniformity 
from June 24, 1559. In the same month, June 1559 
he was appointed with Cecil, Cooke, Dr. Parker 


Haddon, Wendy, Home and James Pilkington to 
reorganise and reform the University. The instructions 
of the Commissioners were almost identical with those 
given to the Commission of 1549, and, with a few 
modifications, the "laws, injunctions and resolutions" 
enacted during the reign of Edward VI. were put in 
force both for the University and the Colleges. These 
Elizabethan Statutes of Queens 1 College are signed by 
Archbishop Parker, Bill, Haddon and Mey. On one 
more Commission Dr. Mey sat in October 1559 — viz., 
the Commission to take the oaths of ecclesiastics. He 
was nominated to the Archbishopric of York June 1560, 
but died August 8, the very day of his election. This 
sad coincidence is noted in the inscription on his monu- 
ment (Dugdale's " St. Paul's," 63). 

"Attulit hmc mortem quce lux concessit honorem; 

Maluit, ac fieri Prcesul, adire polum. 
Aspice quam rebus sit sors incerta caducis ! 

En ! pete quce nulla sint peritura die." 

He left the College financially very prosperous. An 
estate at Eversden had recently been purchased for 
£60. And now, February 1560, the College purchased 
from Mr. Anthony Pope, the manor, advowson and 
estate of Hockington (Oakington), Cambridge, which 
had been the property of Croyland Abbey, for i?700 
(Searle, pp. 295-96). 



" In her days .... 
God shall be truly known ; and those about her 
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour." 

Shakespeare, King Henry VIII. 

Presidents: John Stokes, 1560-1568; William Chaderton, 1568- 
1579; Humphrey Tindall, 1579-1614; John Davenant, 1614-1622; 
John Mansell, 1622-1631. 

The continual changes of the last few years had 
operated most prejudicially on the University. A 
striking proof of this is seen in the fact that in the 
academic year 1558-59, the number of persons who took 
the B.A. degree was only twenty-eight (Mullinger, 
"Univ. of Camb.," ii. 170). Within ten years the 
University had been 

" under the government of four different constitutions, had 
witnessed the banishment and death of some of her most 
distinguished ornaments, and had been exposed to the still 
more bitter trial and humiliation of witnessing the most 
rapid and fundamental revolutions of opinion and profession, 
amongst the majority of her members, on the most vital 
points which can concern mankind " (Dean Peacock, 
"Observations," p. 41, quoted Mullinger ii. 178). 

Yet, it is surprising how rapidly Cambridge recovered 





under a firm and settled government. There were diffi- 
culties and struggles soon to come. The extreme 
reformers developed into Calvinists and Puritans. 
Nowhere were the early Puritans stronger than in Cam- 
bridge. The University was divided and convulsed by 
the Puritan movement, and, had its course not been 
guided by clear heads and firm hands, might easily have 
been wrecked at this crisis. But happily the rulers of 
Church and State were wise and firm. Cambridge had 
never had more loyal sons than Archbishop Parker and 
Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley. They asked nothing 
better than to be able to serve Cambridge. "I would 
wish," writes Parker, before" he had been made Primate 
(Correspondence p. 51) " to bestow most my time in the 
University, the state whereof is miserable at this present, 
as I have had intelligence from time to time thereof." 
He was not suffered " to bestow his time " in Cambridge, 
but from his high place he exercised a wise and vigilant 
control over his akna mater. Cecil, writing in a moment 
of discouragement, when he wished to be relieved of the 
Chancellorship, declares his unalterable affection for "the 
honourable and deare body of the University," 

" wherof, although I was once but a simple, small, unlerned 
and loe member, yet have I as greate plentye of natural 
humor of love towards the same as eny other that hath by 
degrees byn rewarded to be yn the higheste place of that 
Bodye'' (Cooper, "Ann.," ii. 174). 

The return of prosperity to the University may be 
illustrated by the rapid rise in numbers of this College. 
At the date of Queen Elizabeth's visit, August 1564, 
when the total number of members of the University 


was 1267, the Society consisted of the President or 
Master ; fifteen Fellows (of whom two were B.D., six 
M.A., and seven B.A.); six pensioners in Fellows 1 
Commons (of whom one was B.D. and two were M.A.), 
twenty-three scholars and Bible-clerks (of whom four 
were B.A.) ; fourteen pensioners in Scholars' Commons ; 
six sizars or poor scholars, in all sixty-five. In 1573 
Dr. Caius enumerated the Master, nineteen Fellows, 
eight Bible-clerks, seventeen scholars and seventy-seven 
pensioners, making a total of one hundred and twenty- 
two. In other words the number of residents had almost 
doubled in less than ten years. And, if we may look 
forward for another fifty years, in 1621, the Society con- 
sisted of a President, nineteen Fellows, twenty-three 
scholars, eight Bible-clerks and three lecturers, these, 
together with the students, making a total of two hundred 
and thirty, probably the highest figure the College has 
ever reached. And, as we shall see, at the period in 
question, Queens 1 was very prosperous under Bishop 

Dr. William Mey's successor was John Stokes. Stokes 
had entered as a Bible-clerk in 1538, was elected Fellow 
1544 and ordained soon afterwards. He had retained 
his Fellowship during the religious changes of the pre- 
ceding reigns, and became Vice-President in 1556. As 
he led the opposition to Mr. Pecocke he was evidently 
an anti-Papist, a conclusion confirmed by the fact that 
Sir William Cecil had marked him for promotion, and 
the Queen had consequently made him Archdeacon of 
York, an office which he retained till his death. He 
became D.D. in 1564, and was Vice-Chancellor in the 
following year. 


The great event of his Presidentship was the visit of 
Queen Elizabeth in August 1564, of which Nicholas 
Robinson, formerly Fellow of Queens', and afterwards 
Bishop of Bangor, wrote a full account in Latin. The 
Chancellor came down to prepare for the royal visit. 
He was most loyally anxious that the University should 
not offend the Queen by any foolish display of Puri- 
tanical proclivities. He commanded " that order should 
be diligently kept of all sorts, and that uniformity 
should be shewn in apparel and religion, especially in 
setting of the communion table.'" On Saturday, August 
5th, the Queen rode in from Haslingfield. She entered 
the town by Queens 1 College, where Sir William Cecil 
sat upon his horse at the gate. From there to the west 
door of Kings 1 College Chapel " stood upon both sides, 
one by one, all the University. 11 Addresses in prose and 
verse, which are preserved in Bishop Robinson's narrative, 
were presented by two Sophisters, two Bachelors, and 
two Masters : one of the Bachelors was Robert Some, of 
Queens 1 College. At the service on the following day 
the sermon was preached by Andrew Perne, formerly 
Fellow of Queens 1 , now Master of Peterhouse. On this 
occasion was used the earliest extant version of that 
particular form of the bidding prayer with which we are 
familiar (Mullinger, ii. 192). Dr. Perne took as his text, 
" Omnis anima subdita sit potestatibus superemmentibus,' 1 '' 
Rom. xiii. 1. And who could more fully enforce the 
duty of obedience to princes than the tolerant divine 
who had steadily obeyed Henry VIII., Edward VI. and 
Queen Mary, no less than her present Majesty ? " He 
attacked the Anabaptists, denounced the arrogance of 
the Pope, commended Henry VI. and Henry VII. for 


their benefactions to the University." To the royal 
foundation, of which he had been a member, he alluded 
with becoming pride. " Quod seculum unquamfuturwm 
erit, in quo admirabili? beneficentia gerenissimas Reginos 
Elizabethce, clarissima? coniugis Edovardi quarti Junda- 
tricis collegii Regince iron m magna laude et admiratione 
erit ? " His object was to stimulate Elizabeth to do the 
like, " privily moving and stoutly exhorting her Highness 
to the lyke, by their example." In the evening the 
Queen witnessed a performance of the Aulularia in 
King's College Chapel. On the following days there 
were disputations in Great St. Mary's Church. In the 
disputations in Philosophy William Chaderton, after- 
wards President, took part ; in Medicine, Dr. Lorkin, 
formerly Fellow of Queens' and in Divinity, Dr. Stokes, 
the President. Her visit to Queens' on the Wednesday 
was cut short for want of time. " Her Majestie came 
home by the Queens' College and S. Katherine's Hall ; 
only perusing the houses because it was almost one a 
clock." The oration prepared by Robert Some for this 
occasion was not delivered ; nevertheless it is duly given 
in Bishop Robinson's narrative. During the Queen's 
stay, " the Cofferer, the Masters and other officers of 
the Household " were lodged in Queens' College (Cooper, 
"Ann.," ii. 184-206). Gifts were made by the College of 
11*. 4<d. to the Comptroller of the Household, and 
9*. 4>d. to the Cofferer (Searle, p. 301). 

At the time of the royal visit the College was engaged 
in building. The wages of the workmen are duly 
recorded in the books during the summer of this year, 
but no particulars about the building itself are given. 
There can be little doubt, however, that the extension 


was on the S. W. side of the College, and that the edifice 
then erected was that " clunch building," which had 
fallen into disrepair and was pulled down to make way 
for Essex's building two hundred years later. Loggan's 
map and plan show the relations of this building to the 
rest of the College. It extended along Silver Street, 
from the S.W. corner of the Hall range to the river, and 
a return of it extended to the Cloisters, overlapping by 
some 25 feet (Willis and Clark, ii. 18) the W. side of 
the Cloister Court. In June 1564, William Packet, 
Bursar, buys stone, i.e., clunch, at Barrington, and 
twenty-two loads are brought to Cambridge. The 
woodwork is charged in the accounts for Sept., the iron- 
work is charged at the end of this year and the beginning 
of the next. " It therefore occupied only seven months 
in building.'" 

Dr. Stokes, as Vice-Chancellor, was called upon to 
adjudicate a curious controversy. The Lady Margaret's 
Preacher, William Hughes, B.D., a former member of 
the College, gave offence to the people of Leicester by 
the doctrines he preached there. Whitgift, the Lady 
Margaret's Professor, was sent to make inquiries, and it 
was decided by the University that the whole question 
should be examined by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Stokes, 
Dr. Whitgift and others. But, as apparently they came 
to no determination, at the Earl of Leicester's request 
the matter was left to him, Sir William Cecil and Arch- 
bishop Parker. Hughes gave offence by his exposition 
of " the descent into hell," and so great a controversy 
arose on the subject in Cambridge, that Cecil, as Chan- 
cellor, ordered that " no manner of person should in any 
sermon, open disputation, or reading, move any question 


or doubt upon the article ' de descensu Christi ad 
inferos.'' " 

John Stokes died April 29th, 1568. He bequeathed 
to the College <£ J 90 and an estate at Ocley (Oakley), 
Bedfordshire, to found four scholarships for poor 
scholars. He was buried in the Chapel. His monu- 
ment was at the E. end, but since 1777 has been in the 
ante-Chapel. The inscription and the verses on the 
brass will be found in Searle, p. 299. He had had a 
brass put up to Andrew Dokett in 1564, as appears 
from the accounts (Searle, p. 302). Dr. Stokes died 
early : he was only 45. 

The thirteenth President, William Chaderton, had 
graduated at Pembroke, and was at this time Fellow of 
Christ's. He was a man of good family, and a scholar 
of great promise, who has already been mentioned as 
taking part in the disputations before the Queen. Sir 
John Har'ington (quoted Searle, p. 304) tells a curious 
story of him. 

" It will not be forgotten in Cambridge, while he is 
remember'd, how preaching one day in his younger yeeres 
a wedding Sermon (which indeed should be festivale) 
Mr. Chatterton is reported to have made this pretty com- 
parison, and to have given this friendly caveat : ' That the 
choice of a wife is full of hazard, not unlike as if one in a 
barrell full of serpents should grope for one Fish ; if (saith 
he) he scape harm of the snakes and light on a fish, he 
may be thought fortunate, yet let him not boast, for 
perhaps it may be but an Eele.' Howbeit he married 
afterwards himself, and I doubt not sped better than his 

Chaderton, in 1567, had been elected Lady Margaret's 


Professor in succession to no less a person than Whit- 
gift. His election to be President was due to the 
influence of Sir William Cecil, to whom he returned 
thanks in a neat and complimentary Latin letter (Searle, 
p. 305). He was admitted May 8th: "the colledg 
diner at the admitting of our mV cost 13.?. 3d. He 
succeeded Dr. Stokes in the Archdeaconry of York as 
well as the Presidentship. 

The new President soon married. It would be 
interesting to know where he bestowed his wife. The 
lady was Katharine Revell, and Chaderton, who was 
chaplain to the famous Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 
wrote to ask his patron's assent to his marriage (Searle, 
p. 305). But Elizabeth, 1 whose views on the subject 
were well known, had taken a high hand in the matter 
of married Heads. The Queen's Majesty expressly 
willed and commanded : 

" that no manner of person, being the head or member of 
any college or cathedral church within this realm, shall 
from the time of the notification hereof in the same college, 
— the date is August 1561 — have or be permitted to have 
within the precinct of any such college, his wife or other 
woman to abide and dwell in the same, or to frequent and 
haunt any lodging within the same college " (Cooper, 
"Ann.,"ii. 169). 

Mr. Mullinger (ii. 287) quotes a case where this ordi T 

nance was disregarded, and no doubt in time it became 

a dead letter.* But it may be doubted whether so early 

* It is a significant fact that " the Bill prohibiting the Residence 
of married men with their Wives and Families in Colleges," etc., got 
as far as the second reading in the Lords in 1604, and again in 1606, 
when it was agreed that it should not be committed. See Cooper, 
" Ann.,'' iii. 5 and 20. 


as this Mrs. Chaderton would be brought into College, 
although there can be little question that the next 
President's family regularly occupied the now enlarged 
Lodge. Dr. Chaderton — he took the D.D. degree in 
1569 — was recommended to the Chancellor, when Dr. 
Whitgift proposed to resign the Regius Professorship of 
Divinity, by the Heads of Houses, " as one most fit in 
their Judgments to succeed in his Place," and received 
the Regius Professorship at the end of 1569, holding it 
until he became Bishop of Chester. The notorious 
Thomas Cartwright succeeded him as Lady Margaret's 
Professor. And the juxtaposition of the names was 
ominous of what was to be Chaderton's main work in 
the University. Under the guidance of Parker and 
Cecil, and under the leadership of the indefatigable 
Whitgift, a number of the Heads banded themselves 
together to uphold the cause of law and order. Of 
these Dr. Chaderton was neither the least conspicuous 
nor the least active. The early divagations of the 
Puritans appeared to be trifling enough. They refused 
to wear the surplice and the cap, and flounced out of 
the College Chapels when the service was commenced in 
Latin, as was now permitted in Collegiate Churches and 
Chapels, " in direct response to a petition representing 
that familiarity with the Latin tongue would be 
thereby promoted, and that this in turn would result in 
a richer growth of theology " (Mullinger, ii. 183). But 
under these childish exhibitions there lay deeper 
principles, and the Church-rulers rightly discerned that 
it was not a mere question of vestments, but that all 
order and uniformity of worship was at stake. Cart- 
wright, whose great abilities and fine personal gifts were 


marred by a strange want of judgment, in his lectures 
on the Acts of the Apostles, bitterly attacked the 
existing Church-government. Both as Regius Professor, 
and as having himself just vacated the chair which Cart- 
wright now filled, Dr. Chaderton might well feel that 
he was deeply concerned in the matter. He writes 
(June 11th, 1570) to the Chancellor to lay before him 
the pass to which things have come. 

"True it is such seditions, contention, and disquietude, 
such errors and schismes openlie taught and preached, 
boldlie and without warant, are latelie growne amongst 
us, that the good estate, quietnes, and governance of 
Cambridge, and not of Cambridge alone but of the whole 
church and realme, are for great hazarde unles severlie by- 
authorities they be punished." Cartwright, who ' alwaies 
stubburnlie refused the cappe and such like ornaments,' 
'dothe now for his daylie lectors teache such doctrine as is 
pernitious and not tollerable for a Christian commonwealth.' 

The sequel hardly belongs to this narrative. It is 
enough to say that Cartwright's degree was refused ; 
that he was first suspended and then deprived of his 

The agitation about Cartwright led to a change in 
the Statutes of the University. The most important 
change was in the caput. The Heads became a distinct 
estate in the government of the University. To them 
also was reserved the interpretation of the Statues. In 
drafting the new Statutes Chaderton lent his help. The 
draft was sent to Cecil, who submitted it to the Arch- 
bishop, and the new Statutes, enacted " on account of 
the again increasing audacity and excessive licence of 

"* ' H 


men," received the Queen's assent Sept. 25th, 1570. See 
Mullinger, " Univ. of Camb.," ii. 222-238. It need only 
here be noted that Humphrey Tindall was one of the 
juniors who protested against the changes made by 
these Statutes, and that Nicholas Robinson, now Bishop 
of Bangor, was one of the distinguished men, to whom 
the matter was referred and who saw no reason to make 
any alterations. The Bishop of Bangor's name was 
added to the list " as some time twice proctor in Cam- 
bridge, and having good understanding in causes there." 
See Cooper, "Ann.," ii. 279-304. 

But Dr. Chaderton had to keep order nearer home. 
One of those who tried to make a diversion in Cart- 
wright's favour was Robert Some, of Queens' College, who 
was the orator on the occasion of the Queen's visit. Mr. 
Some preached a violent sermon at St. Mary's nominally 
directed against pluralities and non-residence, which, 
said Dr. Chaderton in his letter to the Chancellor, " had 
not been greatly amiss, but that he burst out into a 
heat of pernicious and rebellious articles," attacking, 
like Cartwright, the government of the Church. This, 
as will appear, was not the only sermon preached by 
Mr. Some which got him into trouble. Chaderton had 
not only to keep order, he had to keep the peace. A 
Fellow, Ralph Jones, is twice admonished by him for 
sowing discord and for quarrelling. The same gentle- 
man was expelled from his Fellowship for retaining 
i?44 15*. ll^d. after the audit of his accounts as Bursar. 
But he was restored by the intercession of Lord 
Burghley, on payment of the money, and a promise 
" quietly to behave hymself in the College hereafter " 
(Searle, pp. 321-22). But the most turbulent spirits in 


the Society were Robert Some aforesaid and Edmund 
Rockrey. They are leaders against the President in the 
case of William Middleton, who, being refused his 
College grace for the MA. degree, took the degree at 
Oxford. The majority of the body considered that this 
was not a compliance with the Statute, but that, if 
Middleton wished to retain his Fellowship, the degree 
must be taken at Cambridge. Hereupon Middleton 
was removed, but Some and Rockrey interposed and 
admonished the President not to proceed to fill up the 
Fellowship. The election was suspended and the case 
referred to the Chancellor. In the end the matter was 
compromised, Middleton was restored to his Fellowship, 
but not to his seniority. 

" At the instance of the righte honorable S r . W m . Cecill, 
Lord Burgheley, and ChaunceUor of this Unyversytie, the 
said Wm. Mydleton, upon his humble submyssyon & 
promes to lyve orderlie and quietlie hereafter, was shortlie 
after Mychelmas eodem anno predicto (1575), chosen agayne 
fellow and so became a junyor and lost both his allowance 
and senioritie." 

But the course of the majority was partly justified by 
subsequent events, for ten years later the same person 
Middleton was brought up before the next President and 
two Senior Fellows and " receyved an admonitione and 
was charged to surcease from disorderly and contentious 
practises and dealinge, upon the perill furder to ensewe, 
upon the Statute de semmandis discordiis.'" (See Searle, 
pp. 324-31.) The case of Edmund Rockrey is more 
complicated. He was a follower of Cartwright's, who 
in defiance of the Vice-Chancellor's monition denounced 


the new Statutes of 1570. He was repeatedly examined 
upon what he had said, and it was finally determined 
that he must read a public recantation. This he refused 
to do, so he was " expelled out of the colledge and 
university for his grete disobedience, disorder and con- 
tumacy.'" However, by the advice of Lord Burghley, 
the sentence was revoked and Rockrey was restored. 
But, though up to this time he had held College offices, 
he does not seem to have been allowed any further part 
in the management of the College. And he had learnt 
nothing from the past. He signed the remonstrance 
against the new Statutes of the University. He refused 
to wear clerical and academic garb, and was repeatedly ad- 
monished because he would not receive the Communion. 
The President and the Chancellor being together at 
Theobald's, in 1575, Dr. Chaderton consulted Lord 
Burghley on the case. The Chancellor urged delay, but 
the President writes a year later that Rockrey is still 
disorderly and a centre of disaffection. Perhaps to 
remove Rockrey from the scene of these disagreements, 
Lord Burghley gave Rockrey a Prebend at Rochester in 
1577. He then refused to resign his Fellowship and 
maintained that he could hold it, as others had done, 
with his Prebend. Lord Burghley's feeling was against 
this, but he would sanction no forcible proceedings. So 
Rockrey held on, to the despair of Dr. Chaderton. At 
last, in 1579, Rockrey retired, and the College got rid 
of a most froward and unruly member. But caelum, 
rum animum, mutavit. At Rochester he was first sus- 
pended and then deprived. Yet " he is said to have been 
distinguished for his learning and abilities, and to have 
been an admired and popular preacher " (Searle, p. 345). 


In 1575 a long agreement was drawn up between the 
University and the Town, for cleansing and lighting the 
streets, and diminishing the danger of pestilence and 
fire. For better provision against the casualty of fire, 
the Colleges were to have proper equipment. The 
apparatus ordered for Queens 1 College was " 5 buckets, 
1 scoop, 1 long ladder, 1 short ladder " (Cooper, 
" Ann.," ii. 337). This is a point on which the Colleges 
have been very remiss, long after the date of this ordi- 
nance. It was reserved for the modern Ladies' Colleges 
to set to the old foundations the example of having an 
organised fire-brigade. 

In 1576 the minister of Trinity parish was committed 
to prison by the Heads for irregularly marrying Mr. 
Byron, of Queens 1 College, to a Miss Beaumont, of 
Leicestershire, who was sojourning in Cambridge. Two 
Masters of Arts, who were present at the wedding, were 
also committed. The case is set forth in a letter from 
the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Goade, to the Chancellor, given 
Cooper, "Ann.," ii. 348. 

" ' The circumstances,' says the Vice-Chancellor, ' maye 
seeme to aggravat the dealing in this contract. The place 
in Cambridge, the younge Gentleman a great heyer (heir), a 
schollar of Queenes Colledge, a pupill about the age of 1 9 
yeres, committed to the charge of a tutor in the same 
Colledge, the marriage without either consent or privity 
of the Gentleman's parents or tutor, the solemnizacion 
close and seacreat without banns or licence for the ministre 
to marry theim, the younge gentleman sence conveyed into 
the country wherby I cannot take ordre for the restoringe 
of him to his Tutor, untill his father's pleasure be knowen, 
besyde the greatest inconvenience of all (if it fall out trew) 


of a precontract pretended sence the said marriage betweene 
the said scholler and another yonge gentlewoman of the 

Poor Mr. Byron ! It looks as if he were a youth with 
more money than brains, who was married out of hand 
by Miss Beaumont and her relations to secure him from 
the toils of the " yonge gentlewoman of the town.'" 

Sir Thomas Smith visited the College in Aug. 1571, 
when he had " a marchpane and a pottle of Ippocras," 
at a cost of 14*. 8d. On December 2nd, 1573, he made 
over to the College a rent charge of £12 7*. 4>d. on the 
manor of Overston, Northamptonshire. With this 
money were to be founded a lectureship in arithmetic, 
with a stipend of £3, a lectureship in geometry, with a 
stipend of £4<, and two scholarships of £2 Ss. 8d. each. 
His lecturers were enjoined that the lectures should not 

" be redd of the reader as of a preacher out of a pulpit, 
but per radium et eruditum pulverem, as it is said, that is with 
a perm on paper or tables, or a sticke or compasse in sand 
or duste to make demonstracon, that his schollers maie both 
understand the reader and also do it themselves and so 

The scholars are required not to proceed B.A. until 
they are expert in arithmetic, nor M.A. until they under- 
stand the first six books of Euclid " bie the judgment 
of the reader of geometrie, upon the said reader of 
geometrie his oth." The balance of £1 was to be 
employed " at one or two daies in the year to amende 
the cheare of the fellows and scholars in such one daie or 
two as it shall please them.'''' This is the origin of 
*' Tom Smith's Feast " on Dec. 2nd. 


The last of Sir Thomas Smith's many services to the 
University was perhaps also the greatest. " One of his 
last acts was the introduction of a measure which long 
afterwards caused his name to be held in grateful remem- 
brance, not only at Queens 1 , but in every College in 
Cambridge and in Oxford, as well as at Eton and at 
Winchester " (Mullinger, ii. 375). This was the Act of 
1576 " for the Maintenance of the Colleges in the Uni- 
versities, and of Winchester and Eaton." The important 
clause is that no College, 

" after the end of this present session of Parliament, shall 
make any Lease for lief lieves or yeeres, of anie ferme or 
anie their Lands, Tenements or other Heredytaments to the 
which anie Tythes, Errable Lande, Meadowe or Pasture 
dothe or shall apperteigne, except thai the one thirde parte 
at the leaste of the olde Rent be reserved and paide in Come, . . . 
that is to sayein good Wheate after VI*. Wild, the quarter 
or under, and good Malte after Vis. the quarter or under. 
. . . The same Wheate, Malte, or the money cominge of the 
same to be expended to the use of the Relief of the 
Commons and Diett of the saide Colledges." 

Sir Thomas reasoned that the supply of gold and 
silver being unlimited, land and the produce of land 
limited, the value of land must rise. The provision that 
one-third at least of the old rent should be paid in corn 
stopped, in part, the system of extravagant fines on the 
renewal of leases, which afforded immediate dividends, 
but conferred no permanent benefit. The third payable 
in corn, which rose to be six or eight times its nominal 
value, became far more valuable to the Colleges than 
the remaining two-thirds paid in money. The 


advantages secured by the measure were soon felt. In 
1601 the Act was described as a "most blessed and 
gracious Statute, . . . without which happie helpe 
the Colledges had, many of them, bene left forsaken by 
their students long ere this " (Cooper, " Ann.," ii. 602). 
(See also Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," vii. 6-8.) 

And so with this most useful measure a great career 
closed. Sir Thomas Smith died Aug. 12th, 1577. By 
his will he bequeathed to the College his Latin and 
Greek books and his great globe, made by himself. Dr. 
Chaderton, through the influence of his patron, Lord 
Leicester, became Bishop of Chester and resigned the 
Presidentship in 1579. He was translated to Lincoln 
in 1595. Sir John Harington says of him, at Cam- 
bridge, that " he was beloved among the schollars, and 
the rather for that he did not affect any soure and 
austere fashion, either in teaching or government, as 
some used to doe ; but well tempered both with courage 
and courtesie" (Searle, pp. 310-11). In 1589 he gave 
the College Library a very fine copy of Montanus 1 Poly- 
glott Bible, in eight volumes. 

On the vacancy made by Bishop Chaderton's resig- 
nation, Humphrey Tindall was elected President, July 
3rd, 1579. He was a son of Sir Thomas Tindall, of 
Hockwold, Norfolk : his mother was Amye, daughter of 
Sir Henry Fermor, of East Barsham. He was just 30 
at the date of his election. The youthful Humphrey 
had been matriculated at Gonville Hall, in 1555. As 
he could not have been more than six years old at the 
time, the case, if the dates are right, is very remarkable* 

* In his deposition about Lord Leicester's marriage he is described 
as natus annus 34 aut circiter. This would allow him to be ten at the 


He did not come into residence at that immature age, 
for he did not graduate until 1565-6, when he was 16 or 
17. He had been scholar of Christ's, and was now 
Fellow of Pembroke, and Vicar of the Pembroke living 
of Soham, which he held to the end. He was, as his 
predecessor had been, chaplain to the Earl of Leicester, 
and in the previous year, 1578, had married him privately 
to Lady Letitia, widow of Walter Devereux, Earl of 
Essex. The marriage caused a great sensation, as it was 
supposed that Lord Essex was poisoned, and Lord 
Leicester forsook Lady Douglas Sheffield, who was 
believed to be his wife. Humphrey Tindall's deposition 
on the subject is quoted from the State Papers by Mr. 
Searle, pp. 352-55. There can be no doubt that he 
owed his promotion to Lord Leicester's influence. The 
probability that he would be put forward for election 
by Lord Leicester had been foreseen, and one of the 
Fellows, David Yale, had written to Lord Burghley a 
year previously to urge that Leicester should not be 
allowed to influence the election, as Mr. Tindall was too 
young and inexperienced to be President. However, 
the election was directly due to Lord Burghley's recom- 
mendation, and Tindall, " ornatus non itapridem, Ilhis- 
trissime Heros, insigni tuo prcestantique beneficio,' 1 '' makes 
his acknowledgments to the Chancellor in due form. 
TindalPs wife, Jane Russell, lived to marry again twice 
after his death. From entries in the College accounts 
she lived in the Lodge, the building of which was com- 
pleted in TindalPs time (see pages 60-62), but they 
resided for the most part at Ely, of which Tindall 

date of his matriculation, and there are cases of matriculation at 
that age. 


became Dean, 1591. The family was of Bohemian 
extraction, and Fuller (" Univ. of Camb.," v. 34) narrates 
of Dr. Humphrey Tindall what he calls " an improbable 
tradition " then current : 

" That in the reign of Queen Elizabeth he was proffered 
by a Protestant Party in Bohemia to be made King thereof. 
Which he refused alleadging that he had rather be Queen 
Elizabeth's subject than a forain Prince. I know full well 
that Crown is elective. I know also for some hundreds of 
years it has been fixed to the German empire. However, 
because no smoak without some fire or heat at least ; there 
is something in it, more than appears to every eye." 

Fuller goes on to say that he does not know how 
Bohemian blood came into his veins, but that he gave 
the arms of Bohemia for a crest. The evidence for 
TindalPs Bohemian descent has been carefully sifted by 
Mr. Searle (pp. 368-370). Fuller's " improbable tradi- 
tion " appears to rest on Robert Johnson's enlargement 
of Bolero's Belazioni universali (Rome, 1592) in which 
Bohemia is said to have offered the crown to Dr. 
Tindall's father, " which story is famously known in 
Cambridge." But there is no trace of the story in 
Bolero himself. 

Tindall, as a young man, was a " Liberal." He had 
signed the remonstrance against the new University 
Statutes in 1572. His views were Calvinistic to a 
marked degree. But a predilection for Calvinistic 
doctrine by no means implied a love for Calvinistic 
discipline. Men, who held strongly the doctrines of 
Calvin, may be said to have spent their lives in combat- 
ing Calvin's system of Church government, because they 


saw that it would mean separation and disintegration. 
In doctrinal opinions, for instance, there was no very 
wide divergence between Archbishop Whitgift and 
Thomas Cartwright. Yet Whitgift's whole career, at 
Cambridge and as Primate, was one long and successful 
struggle against the theories of Travers' DiscipMma, 
which was the accepted pronunciamento of the Puritan 
party. And Humphrey Tindall, Calvinist as he was, 
would have nothing to do with any Puritan laxity, and 
held the reins of government with a hand as firm as ever 
his predecessor had done. One of his first acts as Pre- 
sident was the building of the College brewhouse, which 
caused a storm in a tea-cup. The expense was defrayed 
by the sale of a number of trees. Both the Chancellor 
and Bishop Chaderton lamented this action. The 
Bishop says that the trees had been " the ornament, . 
bewty, and defence of the Colledge," and hopes that 
" the long row of goodly ashes 11 may be saved. The 
Vice-Chancellor is ordered to inspect and report to the 
Chancellor. His report with the explanation of the 
Fellows was apparently satisfactory, and the matter was 
allowed to drop. 

While Dr. Tindall was Vice-Chancellor, 1585-86, 
John Smith, of phristfs, in his Ash-Wednesday sermon, 
attacked the custom pf allowing plays to be performed 
in the Colleges on Saturday and Sunday evenings, as a 
breach of the Sabbath. He was summoned before' the 
Vice-Chancellor and Heads and examined on his sermon. 
Smith was more amenable to authority than members of 
his party usually were. He undertook to explain his 
views more fully in another sermon, which was to be 
submitted beforehand to the judgment of the Vice- 


Chancellor. The importance attached to such pulpit 
utterances, and the fierce controversies which originated 
therefrom, will be better understood, if it is remembered 
that attendance at the sermon was obligatory, and 
absence was punished by a fine. And the pulpit was, 
perhaps, never more potent than it was in Cambridge at 
this time. Many members of the University were called 
to account for ill-judged sermons shortly afterwards. 
Such were the famous William Perkins, of Christ's, who 
" subsequently explained himself, 11 Charles Chadwick, of 
Emmanuel, Sampson Sheffield, of Christ's, and Francis 
Johnson, of Christ's. Dr. Tindall, on these occasions, 
showed himself as firmly determined as any of the Heads 
that liberty should not run wild to licence. The dis- 
course, however, which was most momentous in its 
issues, was preached by a man of quite the opposite 
school of thought to the " Separatists" just mentioned. 
William Barret, Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, 
in the Easter Term of 1595 (Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," 
vii. 17), attacked the doctrines of Calvin " with some 
sharp and unbecoming speeches of that reverend man, 
and other foreign learned Protestant writers (exhorting 
the auditors not to read them)." This sermon marks 
the beginning of a revolt against Calvinistic doctrines. 
The reaction came surely, if slowly, and the first step had 
been taken which led to Bancroft, Mountaigne and 
Laud. Barret was cited, and eventually consented to 
recant. But his recantation was so made that it was 
held to aggravate the offence. He was again cited, and, 
being threatened with expulsion, appealed to Arch- 
bishop Whitgift for protection, complaining of the 
harshness with which he was treated, and the undue 


leniency shown to men of views opposite to his own. 
The Archbishop intervened with more force than dis- 
cretion, and, while correspondence was passing between 
Whitgift and the Heads of Houses, Robert Some 
preached another of his violent sermons ; " intemperate 
and indiscreet" the Archbishop calls it. Peterhouse, 
on the death of Dr. Perne, had chosen another Master 
from Queens'. But the bitter and bigoted Some was a 
complete contrast to the kindly and tolerant Perne. 
On this occasion 

" his text, it seems, was out of Acts iv. 5 : ' Their rulers, 
and elders and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and 
Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were 
of the kindred of the high priest were gathered together 
at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst 
they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done 
this ? ' Turning all this unto the Archbishop (John 
Whitgift) that bore one of these names, and the rest of the 
high commission : comparing them unto these Jewish 
persecutors : and those that were convented before them 
to Peter and John, the preachers of Christ and his doctrine" 
(Strype, "Life of Whitgift, iv. 15). 

The sermon was considered to be a direct attack on 
the Archbishop, though the Heads assured him that 
they had not so understood Some, and that Some 
denied any such intention. If the attack was intended, 
its grossness was greatly aggravated by the fact that 
Some owed his election at Peterhouse to Whitgiffs 
choice. However, when Barret was summoned to Lam- 
beth, Humphrey Tindall and Whitaker, Master of St. 
John's, were sent to represent the Heads. Barret was 


told that his views on some points were erroneous, and 
agreed to sign a recantation drawn up by the Arch- 
bishop. The interest of this mission of Tindall and 
Whitaker to Lambeth lies in the fact that it led to the 
Lambeth Articles, which, though they seemed to be a 
victory for Calvinism, hastened the downfall of Cal- 
vinistic views in Cambridge and the Church of England 

Among the Cambridge verses composed on the death 
of Sir Philip Sidney are Latin verses by Dr. Tindall, 
printed Searle, p. 359, and Miles Sands, Fellow of 
Queens'", and Greek verses by Richard Milbome, Fellow 
of Queens', afterwards Bishop of Carlisle. The number 
of men who could write Greek verses in the University 
must have been small at this date. When Downes' long 
tenure of the Greek chair (1585-1625) ended, it is 
mentioned by Fuller as something most wonderful that 
there were actually five duly qualified candidates for the 
Professorship ! Of the Grecians at this period, Queens" 
College had a full share, for two of the best Greek 
scholars in England were Sir Thomas Smith and John 
Aylmer, Bishop of London, formerly Fellow. Aylmer's 
name will always be held in honour, for it was he who 
imparted to Lady Jane Grey her wonderful knowledge 
and love for Greek. The number of Queens' men who 
were then prominent in Church and State is conclusive 
evidence of the reputation and prosperity of the College. 
Besides the worthies who have just been mentioned, 
Queens' was one of the Colleges which could lay claim 
to Archbishop Whitgift, whose academic career com- 
menced as a pensioner here, and among her members 
were Thomas Davies, Bishop of St. Asaph (d. 1573), 


Nicholas Robinson, Bishop of Bangor (d. 1585), John 
Mey, Bishop of Carlisle (d. 1598), Edward Scambler, 
Bishop of Norwich (d. 1594), William Chaderton, 
Bishop of Chester, then of Lincoln (d. 1608), Richard 
Longworth, Master of St. John's and Dean of Chester 
(d. 1579), Andrew Perne, Master of Peterhouse and 
Dean of Ely (d. 1589), George Gardiner, Dean of 
Norwich (d. 1598), Henry Hastings, Earl of Hunting- 
don, Lord President of the North (d. 1595), Sir Thomas 
Heneage, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (d. 1594) 
Roger Manvers, Earl of Rutland, Ambassador to Den- 
mark, famous as a soldier and a traveller (d. 1612), 
Poynings Heron, one of the commanders in the army 
raised to repel the Spanish Armada (d. 1595), Edward de 
Vere, Earl of Oxford, the poet (d. 1604), Sir Christopher 
Yelverton, Speaker of the House of Commons (d. 1607), 
John, Lord Lumley, High Steward of the University of 
Oxford, a great benefactor to the University Library 
and to the Bodleian Library (d. 1609), William, Lord 
Cobham, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (d. 1597), 
Henry Smith, the preacher, known as " silver-tongued " 
(d. 1591), Dr. Richard Cosin, Dean of the Arches (d. 
1597), Thomas Newton, famous as a Latin poet (d. 
1607), Thomas Digges, mathematician (d. 1595), Robert 
Bowes, Ambassador to Scotland (d. 1597). The list 
could be extended considerably, but the names given 
will suffice to show how many men of varied attain- 
ments Queens' College had among her alumni. Prob- 
ably no Cambridge College, and certainly no Oxford 
College — for Cambridge, in the reign of Elizabeth, 
enjoyed an easy superiority — could show a more dis- 
tinguished list. 


A melancholy interest attaches to an endowment 
received in 1593. Sir Henry Williams, alias Cromwell, 
of Hinchinbrooke, made over to the town of Hunting- 
don i?40, the value of goods forfeited to him as lord of 
the manor of Warboys, on condition that the sum of 
40«. be paid to a Fellow of Queens 1 College, being D.D. 
or B.D., for an annual sermon preached on March 25th, 
in one of the churches of Huntingdon. The forfeited 
goods belonged to John Samwell, of Warboys, who, 
with his wife Alice and his daughter Agnes, was accused 
of procuring the death of Lady Susan Cromwell, Sir 
Henry's wife, by witchcraft. The accused persons were 
imprisoned on Lady Cromwell's death, and Mrs. Sam- 
well, who was a feeble old woman, being tortured in 
prison, confessed to everything with which she was 
charged. The prisoners were accordingly convicted of 
bewitching Lady Cromwell and other persons, and all 
three were hanged. A full account of the case is given 
by Mr. Searle, pp. 380-383. It appears that the unfor- 
tunate old woman was nearly eighty; that the first 
suggestion of witchcraft was made by a Cambridge 
physician, Dr. Barrow; that the supposed witch had 
been sent to Bishop Wickham, and confessed to him and 
two j ustices of the peace ; and that the Judge who tried 
the case (Mr. Justice Fenner) tested the alleged effects 
himself. The terrible belief in witchcraft was not only 
common, but was increasing . at this time. The belief 
was held strongly by no less a person than King 
James I. himself. Mr. Mullinger (" Univ. of Camb.," 
ii. 489) quotes a contemporary case, where the pretended 
power to exorcise claimed by a graduate of the Uni- 
versity was exposed by Dr. Harsnet, Master of 


Pembroke. But evidently Dr. Harsnet was far in 
advance of the time in his courageous attack upon this 
horrible belief. Dr. Tindall was appointed by the 
Privy Council to investigate a case of witchcraft in 
1609 (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 13). In the annual sermon 
the preacher was to " preache and invaye against the 
detestable practise, synne, and offence of witchcraft, 
inchauntement, charme and sorcerye." One of these 
sermons was preached by the famous John Smith, the 
Cambridge Platonist ; four sermons, preached by Mr. 
Naylor in 1792-95, were published under the title of 
" The Inanity and Mischief of Vulgar Superstition, 1 " 
and some account of the witches of Warboys was added. 
The last sermon was preached in 1812 by the " Rev. Mr. 
Goram," i.e., the Rev. C. G. Gorham, whose views on 
Baptism ' gave rise to "the Gorham controversy." Sir 
Henry Cromwell had entered as a fellow-commoner 
July 2, 1580 ; Oliver Cromwell and Robert Cromwell 
had also entered as fellow-commoners in Jan. 1578 ; a 
second Henry Cromwell entered Aug. 30, 1600 ; 
Thomas, John and William Cromwell, April 2, 1604 
(" Old Parchment Reg." 37). 

On Lord Burghley's death, in 1598, the gifted but 
unfortunate Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, was elected. 
Chancellor. Lord Essex had been Whitgiffs pupil at 
Trinity, and the Archbishop strongly recommended his 
election to the Chancellorship : " I doe not think any 
man in' England so fitt for that office as he is." The 
new Chancellor shortly afterwards visited the University 
and stayed at Queens' 1 , where the room he lodged in 
was long called "the Essex Chamber." On this occa- 
sion " the pleasant comedy of ' Lelia ' was excellently well 


acted before him " (Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," vii. 34). 
Lord Essex was also Earl Marshal of England, and, 
during his short tenure of the Chancellorship, was able 
to settle one of the many questions which caused 
constant bickerings between University and Town, viz., 
the question of precedence between the Vice-Chancellor 
and the Mayor. His award was, " I do set down this 
judgment, as earl marshal of England and judge by my 
office of all places and precedencies, that the vice-chan- 
cellor of Cambridge is to be in commission before the 
Mayor. 11 Cooper's " Annals," vol. ii., from which this 
award is taken (p. 594) afford ample evidence that Dr. 
Humphrey Tindall was firm in maintaining the privi- 
leges of the University against encroachments by the 
Town. Another member of the College, Dr. John 
Jegon, who became Master of Corpus, was, perhaps, the 
chief champion of the University in these disputes. In 
less than three years from his election, the brilliant 
Robert Devereux's career closed with tragic sadness on 
Tower Hill, and Sir Robert Cecil, afterwards Earl of 
Salisbury, the younger son of the great Burghley, was 
promoted from Lord High Steward to be Chancellor of 
the University. 

The depreciation of the value of College property by 
the system of fines on the renewal of leases has been 
already alluded to in connexion with Sir Thomas 
Smith's Act. But even now that the alienation of 
College lands had been forbidden by law, means were 
found to evade this most proper enactment, and Queens' 
College furnished a case of evasion in 1598. The estate 
at Babraham was part of the benefaction of John 
Otware. This estate, by a lease bearing date Feb. 7, 


1598, was granted to Sir Horatio Pallavicini for three 
lives, with a reserved rent of three guineas. Then a 
deed bearing date Feb. 9 was executed, covenanting 
that, in consideration of i?200 paid by him, heshould 
enjoy the estate in fee simple, that acquittances should 
be given by the College for the reserved rent, as it 
became due, without its being received; that at any 
time within a month after requisition the College should 
grant new leases ; and that it should hand over to Sir 
Horatio all papers concerning the estate. The last 
lease granted in pursuance of this covenant was made 
to Thomas Minott, of Stortford, in Hertfordshire, in 
1636, with the rent reserved of a peppercorn, if demanded. 
In the deed of sale it is said to be the intention of the 
President and Fellows to purchase another estate with 
the i?200. But this was never done, and ultimately the 
money was spent on the building of the rooms in the Wal- 
nut-Tree Court, a very useful application of the money, 
so that if ill-gotten it was well spent. Dr. Plumptre 
closes his MS. account of the transaction as follows : 

" The estate consisted of sixty acres of land and some 
tenements, and the price given for the purchase might 
perhaps at that time be a fair one. The purchaser was a 
courtier and great favourite of King James I., and how 
far this act of the then Body is to be excused on the score 
of Court influence, I must leave to the readers." 

King James, on his joyful progress to assume the 
English crown, did not come to Cambridge. But at 
Hinchinbrooke, the seat of Sir Oliver Cromwell, the 
uncle after whom the Protector was named, he received 
the homage of the University (Fuller, "Univ. of 


Camb.," vii. 35-36) and there in all probability 
the Millenary Petition was presented to him. Soon 
after the Hampton Court Conference the strenuous 
Whitgift passed away, with Pro Ecclesia Dei on his lips 
— no unfit summary of his long and useful life. The 
Ecclesiastical Canons of 1604 were Bancroft's. By them 
uniformity was enforced on all Colleges. 

" All masters and fellows of colleges and halls, and all 
the scholars and students in either of the Universities, 
shall in their Churches and Chapels upon all Sundays, holy 
days, and their eves, at the time of divine service, wear 
surplices, according to the order of the Church of England," 
Canon 17. 

The Heads of Colleges were required to furnish 
certificates of the conformity of their societies with lists 
of the ministers who held a licence to preach. The 
President of Queens'' made his return Jan. 7, 1605. 

" According to Mr. Vice-Chancellor's appointment, I do 
hereby certify that the Fellows, Scholars and Students of 
our Colledge as usually before time, so at this present, do 
continue y e conformity in Divinis Officiis, both in Surplisses 
and Hoods, every one according as the University 
Statutes do require, and also in due observation of the 
Communion Book."* 

He appends the names of ten " ministers, who being 
now present at home have shewed letters of orders " 
(Searle, p. 393). 

Early in 1607 the acting of plays in the Colleges was 
attended with serious disorders. The worst disturbance 
was at King's, where the windows of the Hall were 

* This is in obedience to Canons 16 and 23, q.v. 


broken, a gate forced, and an uproar made " by multi- 
tude of scholars and others, for the space of about two 
hours together " (Cooper, " Ann., 11 iii. 24). But 
windows were broken in Queens' too, for in the 
accounts appears the entry : " Item for repairing th' hall 
windowes after the plaies .... xlv 8 ." In conse- 
quence of these disorders a decree, inflicting banishment 
or suspension from degrees in the case of graduate 
offenders, and " correction in the schools by the rod ' 
for rum adutii, was published by the Heads, among them 
Dr. Tindall, who, if his signatures are given correctly, 
never seemed quite to have made up his mind how to 
spell his own names. George, fourth Earl of Hunting- 
don, was entertained by the College in this year. His 
visit was probably paid because his grandson Henry, 
afterwards fifth Earl, was in residence at the time. His 
Lordship's entertainment cost £4s 5s. 4*7. Two bene- 
factions that deserve notice belong to this date, viz., 
those of Humphrey Davies and John Stoddart. 
Humphrey Davies gave land to found a Fellowship an d 
six scholarships. The College compounded with his 
executors in 1630 for ,£250 instead of the land. The 
money was paid by instalments, but, being in Dr. 
Martin's hands, was sequestered by the Parliament in 
1642 with Dr. Martin's own property, and so lost to 
the College (see chap. vii.). John Stoddart, citizen and 
grocer of London, founded a scholarship with a rent- 
charge on " the Swan with Two Necks," Lad Lane, 
London. Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, men- 
tioned above, soon afterwards gave 102 volumes to the 
Library, and Roger Manners, Earl of Rutland, gave two 
sums (20 marks and £ 20) to the Library for buying 


books. Dr. Tindall himself, by his will, gave " all his 
books in folio which were not in the Library, 1 " which 
were 58 in number, as well as " the seeling and wayns- 
coting of his chamber and lodging, 11 which he values at 
<£250 more than he has received. This, as already 
explained (p. 61) refers to the large extensions which 
virtually completed the Lodge in his time. He died at 
Ely, Oct. 12, 1614, and the lines at the foot of his 
monument in the Cathedral are worth quoting : 

" In presence, government, good actions and in birth, 
Grave, wise, couragious, Noble, was this earth, 
The poor, y e church, y e colledge saye here lyes 
A friende, A Deane, A Maister, true, good, wise." 

Hut this is not so quaint as the inscription to his 
sister Ursula, who like him was buried in the Cathedral — 

{Tyndall by birth. 
Coxee by choice. 
Upcher in age and for comfort. 
Anno Aetatis 77. 

A lady's reasons for contracting a second marriage in 
mature years have not often been stated in such plain 
unvarnished terms ! 

Dr. Tindall's death had been long expected, and the 
question of his successor had been freely discussed. 
The choice lay between John Davenant and George 
Mountaigne. Seldom have two better qualified men 
been proposed for the Headship of a College, and seldom 
have their claims been more nicely balanced. John 
Davenant was the son of a wealthy and well-connected 
London merchant. He was admitted a pensioner of 
Queens 1 College in 1587. He had an elder brother, 


Edward, who is highly praised as a mathematician and 
classical scholar, and " was a better Grecian than the 
Bishop " (John). When a Fellowship was first offered 
to Davenant his father would not allow him to accept it, 
" as conceiving it a bending of these places from the 
direct intent of the Founders, when they are bestowed 
on such as have plenty." The father must have been a 
high-minded and honourable man ; people did not often 
show such conscientiousness in dealing with endowments. 
However, on his father's death in 1597 he became a 
Fellow. He had been Examiner, Greek lecturer and 
Dean. According to the testimony of his nephew, 
Thomas Fuller, the Church historian, 

"Dr. Whitaker (then Regius Professor), hearing him 
dispute, said that he would in time prove the honour of the 
University. A prediction that proved not untrue; when 
afterwards he was chosen Margaret Professor of Divinity 
being as yet but a private Fellow of the College." 

He was appointed Professor and became D.D. in 
1609, when he was 36. For a short time before his 
election as President he had held the College living of 
Hockington (Oakington), and Fuller (quoted Searle, 
p. 410) tells a delightful story of the future Bishop and 
an Anabaptist who objected to pay tithes. George 
Mountaigne, who was three years senior to Davenant, 
was also well-born. He was elected Fellow in 1592, and 
was praised for his acting in the Miles Gloriosus in the 
College about the same time. He was a man of ability 
and a highly attractive person. He was now Dean of 
Westminster and " was often heard for to pi'ofesse, he 
would rather be master of that College (Queens 1 ) than 


dean of Westminster." According to the story told by 
Thomas Ball, the pupil and biographer of the famous 
Puritan tutor of Queens', John Preston, Davenant owed 
his election to Preston's energetic zeal on his behalf. 
Preston was afraid of Mountaigne's Court influence, 
especially his influence with Robert Carr, Viscount 
Rochester, the ruling favourite. Accordingly he planned 
to secure a free election. He posted horses along the, 
road to London, and on the news of Dr. Tindall's death 
rode off" in hot haste and addressed himself to Lord 
Rochester on behalf of Dr. Davenant. Rochester, 
ignorant that his chaplain, Mountaigne, coveted the post, 
was favourable, and Preston returned and had the elec- 
tion of Davenant made before Mountaigne had time to 
move. The account, whatever truth there is in it, is 
animated by a most manifest bias against Mountaigne, 
to whom Ball is very unfair. Thus he states that Moun- 
taigne had given a goodly piece of plate to the College 
with the inscription sic incipio, but now in his anger 
" vowed it should be sic desirta." But Mountaigne never 
interrupted his friendly relations with the College : and 
only four years later (1618) he founded two scholarships. 
Nor did his failure on this occasion in any way interfere 
with Mountaigne's singularly rapid promotion. He 
became successively Bishop of Lincoln 1617, of London 
1621, of Durham 1627, and finally in 1628, the year of 
his death, Archbishop of York. It was a singular 
accident that as Bishop of London it devolved upon 
him to consecrate his former rival to the Bishopric of 
Salisbury. But while Dr. Mountaigne's memory deserves 
to be cleared from the unworthy aspersions of Ball, no 
fault need be found with the result of the election. Dr. 


Davenant proved as successful a President as he was a 
learned divine. The College was never more prosperous 
than during his eight years' rule with Preston as tutor. 
And in balancing the claims of the two candidates for the 
Presidentship, one cannot help feeling that John Davenant 
would never have said to the King, when he was perplexed 
about the filling of a bishopric, " Say unto this mountain, 
Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the see.'''' 

When Prince Charles and the Elector Palatine had 
visited Cambridge in 1613, Dr. Davenant had won high 
praise as moderator in the disputations. "The best 
Divine in my judgment 1-1 (says Hacket, Life of Williams) 
" that ever was in that place, Dr. Davenant, held the 
Bains of the Disputation. 1 ' And when King James, 
accompanied by Prince Charles, came in 1615 the two 
Divinity professors, Dr. Bichardson and Dr. Davenant, 
disputed before his Majesty, with Bishop Harsnet, 
the Vice-Chancellor, as moderator. Dr. Davenant had 
to maintain the proposition that " the Pope has no 
temporal power over kings, 11 and denied the Pope's 
right to excommunicate kings. Dr. Bichardson ob- 
jected and alleged the excommunication of Theodosius 
by St. Ambrose. But on this the King angrily inter- 
rupted that St. Ambrose had acted most arrogantly. 
Dr. Bichardson bowed to the King's authority : " Re- 
sponsum vere regium et Alexandro dignum. Hoc rum 
est argumenta dissolvere sed dissecare " ; " and so sitting 
down, he desisted from any farther dispute." But the 
disputation in philosophy is still more famous. Matthew 
Wren, of Pembroke, afterwards Bishop of Ely, was 
respondent, and John Preston, of Queens 1 , was first 
opponent. They had been chosen as the best talents 


in the University, and the subject had been happily 
selected to suit the taste of a monarch who was equally 
fond of hunting and of philosophy. The question was 
" whether dogs could make syllogisms." Preston said 
they could. "The major proposition in the mind of a 
harrier is this : ' The hare is gon either this or that 
way " : and with his nose he smells out the minor, 
namely, ' She is not gon that way,' and follows the 
conclusion, ' Ergo, this way,' with open mouth." Wren 
objected and distinguished between "sagacity" and 
" sapience." " Dogs especially in things of prey and 
that did concern their belly might be nasuti, but not 
logici." Preston was prepared with another syllogism, 
when the moderator, Dr. Read, interposed ; but the 
King was delighted; he intervened in person and 
instanced the case of one of his own dogs that was right, 
when all the rest had gone wrong, marked the place, 
went after the others, and " by such yelling arguments 
as they can best understand prevailed upon a party of 
them to go along with him, 1 ' and so succeeded. What, 
the King asked the moderator, could he have done better 
himself ? He bade the poor moderator " think better 
of his dogs, or not so highly of himself." Preston saw 
his opportunity, and " desired leave to pursue the King's 
game, which he had started, unto an issue; but the 
answerer protested that his Majesties dogs were always 
to be excepted, who hunted not by common law, but by 
prerogative." This was a delightful piece of flattery, 
which appealed directly to the King's foibles. But the 
moderator had now recovered himself and was equally 
adroit. He acknowledged that the King's dogs were- 
able to outdo him and prayed his Majesty to 


" consider how his illustrious influence had already ripened 
and concocted all these Arguments and Understandings, that 
whereas in the morning the reverend and grave Divines 
could not make Syllogismes, the Lawyers could not, nor 
the Physicians, now every Dog could, especially his 
Majesties," "and the king went off well pleased with the 
businesse " (Ball, "Life of Preston," 80-81). 

Preston's name comes up again in connexion with 
the performance of George Ruggle's celebrated play 
" Ignoramus " before the King at Clare. The actors had 
been chosen from the whole University, birth, good looks 
and talent being considered, and amongst those selected 
was Morgan, a pupil of Preston's, who had allotted to 
him the'part of the heroine, Rosabella. Preston declined 
to allow his pupil to take a woman's part, but the boy's 
guardians overruled the objection and Morgan eventually 
played the character. However, another member 
of the College, Samuel Fairclough, held such strong 
views on the subject of appearing in woman's clothes 
that he took no part in the performance. The parts 
were distributed thus : Ignoramus, Parkinson, of Clare ; 
Theodorus, Hutchinson, of Clare ; Antonius, Holies 
(afterwards Lord Holies), of Christ's ; Rosabella, 
Morgan, of Queens' (killed at the first battle of 
Newbury fighting for the King) ; Dorothea, Norfolk, of 
Queens'; Surda and Vince, Compton (afterwards Earl 
of Northampton), of Queens' ; Trico, Lake, of Clare 
(afterwards Secretary of State); Dulman, Towers, of 
Queens' (afterwards Bishop of Peterborough) ; Torcol, 
Bargrave, of Clare (afterwards Dean of Canterbury); 
Bannacar, Love (afterwards Master of Corpus). An 
analysis of this famous piece with an account of the 


performance is given by Mr. Mullinger ("Univ. of 
Camb.," ii. 528-542). It occasioned much comment that 
some of the actors were in Orders, and a courtier, who 
compares the King's receptions at Oxford and Cam- 
bridge, alludes to this fact in the lines — 

" Oxford had good Comedies, but not such benefactours ; 
For Cambridge Bisshops whiflers had, and Preachers for 
their actours." — (Cooper, "Ann.," iii. 82). 

Preston had entered at King's, but not being an Eton 
boy he migrated to Queens'. He is stated to have been 
the pupil of Oliver Bowles, one of the best tutors of his 
day, but Bowles seems to have left Queens' before the 
man who was to be the tutor of the next period 
entered the College (Searle, p. 397). It was only 
after taking his degree that Preston became in any 
way remarkable. Then his abilities became widely 
known. Mr. Mullinger ("Univ. of Camb.," ii. 478-483) 
narrates, how he who had before been careless of divinity 
was touched and changed by the preaching of John 
Cotton. Under Dr. Davenant, Preston was Dean and 
Catechist as well as Tutor. His addresses in the Chapel, 
like those of Bishop Andrewes at Pembroke, attracted 
such crowds that it was found necessary to exclude all 
who were not members of the College. As a tutor he 
stood without a rival in popularity, and the number 
of men who entered under him was very large. And 
despite his Puritanical views many of his pupils were 
men of family and fellow-commoners. Preston is so 
conspicuous a figure in the Cambridge of that time that 
it may be permitted to touch very briefly on some 
incidents of his later career. Numerous as were his 


pupils he kept a watchful eye on them all. His care is 
illustrated by the story told of him how, when a 
young fellow-commoner, Sir Capel Bedell, had fallen 
in love with the daughter of Dr. Newcome, commissary 
to the Bishop of Ely, Preston took a party of his 
pupils, including the enamoured one, for a few days to 
the country, and brought the party, without exciting 
any suspicions, to Much Hadham, where Sir Arthur 
Capel, the young gentleman's grandfather, lived. There 
the secret entanglement was told to the grandfather ; 
the young baronet remained at Much Hadham, and the 
hopes of Dr. Newcome and his daughter were blighted. 
But Dr. Newcome, who lived in St. Botolph's parish, 
was avenged. Many who could not hear Preston in 
Queens' College Chapel desired to hear him elsewhere. 
He undertook to preach at St. Botolph's and a crowd 
was assembled to hear him, when Dr. Newcome, as 
Bishop's Commissary, forbade the sermon. The con- 
gregation protested, but Dr. Newcome remained 
inflexible and withdrew from the church with his 
family. Rather than disappoint his audience Preston 
defied the veto and preached " a very savoury and 
holy sermon." Newcome hurried off' to the King, who 
was at Newmarket, and goaded his Majesty to take 
action. The King directed Bishop Andrewes to take 
proceedings. Preston was summoned before the Heads 
(among them Dr. Davenant), ordered to apologise to 
Dr. Newcome, which he did, and to preach at St. 
Botolph's another sermon, telling people that they 
ought to attend their own parish churches and not 
run gadding to sermons elsewhere. Whatever Preston 
thought he did not show his feelings, but preached 


to the crowd, all agape for a sensation, a sermon on 
growth in grace and prayer as a means to growth 
in grace, which sent the most frivolous home in 
serious mood (Fuller, "Univ. of Camb.," viii. 6). 
They came to scoff and they stayed to pray. However, 
Preston was debarred from preaching in Cambridge 
without the express permission of the Vice-Chancellor, 
although by Buckingham's influence he was restored 
to the King's favour and made one of the Prince's 
chaplains. But Preston was soon to be moved to 
another College. Emmanuel was the Puritan College, 
and Preston was in every way a man after the heart 
of the Fellows of that College. Nothing could suit 
them better than to have such a man as Preston for 
Master. Their Master, Laurence Chaderton, was very 
old, but still wonderfully vigorous. He lived to be nearly 
103. Buckingham made Chaderton's retirement easy, 
by pledging himself to provide for him, and gave 
assurance that the King would welcome Preston's 
election. Still, in spite of these assurances, the 
Fellows of Emmanuel were very uneasy. The greatest 
secrecy was observed, the very gates were kept locked, 
until the election was safely over and Preston had been 
chosen. Then he was escorted in procession by the 
members of his old College to the foundation which 
had chosen him as its Head, and Puritan Emmanuel 
unbent to unwonted feasting and rejoicing.* This was 

* Preston took some of his pupils with him to Emmanuel, among 
them a Londoner, Chambers, a youth of ability. When wonder 
was expressed how rooms would be found for these men in a College 
already so full, "I remember," says Fuller ("Worthies, Northampton- 
shire"), one said, "Master Preston will carry Chambers along with 


in 1622, and the date looks like a confirmation of the 
theory that Preston's position at Queens' largely 
depended on Davenant's strong support, and that when 
Davenant became a Bishop, Preston was perhaps not 
very anxious to be left without a protector in a place 
where "the Fellows for the most part were not his 
friends." One more contest and one more victory still 
lay before Preston after his election at Emmanuel. His 
admirers determined to secure his appointment as 
lecturer at Trinity Church, and largely increased the 
stipend of the office to make the post worthy of 
his acceptance. Trinity Church was in the gift of the 
Crown, and King James endeavoured to induce Preston 
to withdraw. But Preston had the Duke of Bucking- 
ham's support ; he stood his ground and eventually was 
appointed to the lectureship, which he held till his, 
death (1624-1628) (Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," viii. 9). 

To return to the history of Queens', Preston in his 
pupil's phrase was "the greatest pupil-monger in 
England," and under Dr. Davenant's rule the College 
was highly prosperous. Increased numbers led to a 
desire for increased accommodation. The site chosen 
for building was N.E. of the Chapel on the ground 
purchased from the Carmelites, hence the building is 
described as being " in the Friars." These were the 
buildings in the Walnut-Tree Court and the date was 
1618. The cost, was defrayed by employing the ^OO 
so irregularly obtained in 1598 by the sale of the estate 
at Babraham, and by using i?100 given about the 
year 1580 by John Joscelyn (formerly Fellow and Latin 
Secretary to Archbishop Parker) to found a Hebrew 
Lectureship — 


[" provided alwaies that ye stipend of 51. yeerly due unto 
the Hebrew Lecturer, and also the yeerly rent . . . which 
y e Land at Babram would have yeelded unto y e Colledg, 
bee payed out of the chamber-rents of the sayd building ; 
untill such time as y 6 Colledg shall purchase land of equall 
valor to yt which was sould away."] 

Other smaller sums, rent-fines, wood-sales, &c, make 
up £714 7*. lOd. The total cost of the building was 
=£886 9*. The balance of £119, 1*. M. was repaid to 
Dr. Davenant ; £TZ Is. 2d. " out of the focalia bill " ; 
^100 in 1622. (See Searle, pp. 437-438.) 

"The date 1 6 17, inscribed on the East front, probably 
denotes the year in which the first stone was laid. The 
final payment to the architects, dated March 9, 1618, is 
signed by them, so that we learn that they were Gilbert 
Wigge and Henry Mann. The former had been employed 
on the second court of St. John's College in 1602. . . . The 
work occupied rather less than two years. The building is 
a stack of brick chambers 106 feet in length. ... It was 
built originally in two storeys, and a half storey with small 
garrets above, as shown in Loggan's print ; and it had four 
chambers on a floor. Having suffered from a fire it was 
partially rebuilt between 1778 and 1782, upon which 
occasion the gablets were removed, and the upper storey 
added" (Willis and Clark, ii. 19-20). 

In 1823 the building was re-roofed, the walls re- 
paired and embattled parapets raised on each side, under 
the direction of Mr. Woods, Clerk of the Works at 
Downing. Mr. J. W. Clark has shown that there 
were three studies in each of these chambers, so that 
when there were sixteen sets of rooms they accommo- 
dated forty-eight men. 


In the same year 1618 Dr. Davenant had a memorable 
experience. He was one of the divines sent by the King 
to the Synod of Dort as deputies from the English 
Church. His colleagues were Dr. Carleton (afterwards 
Bishop of Llandaff and of Chichester) the one Oxford 
man among the deputies, Dr. Samuel Ward, Master of 
Sidney, and Dr. Joseph Hale (afterwards Bishop of 
Norwich), whose place was taken later by Thomas 
Goade of King's, while Walter Balcanqual of Pembroke 
came to represent the Church of Scotland. Drs. Dave- 
nant and Ward attended before the King at Royston on 
Oct. 8 and received his Majesty's instructions. The 
Synod lasted from Nov. 3rd 1618 till April 29th 1619. 
Its proceedings were chiefly remarkable for the arrogance 
of the dominant party and the unfairness with which 
the Remonstrants were treated. The English deputies 
remained unshaken in their Calvinism, but the whole 
tone and tenor of the Synod helped on the reaction 
against the prevailing tenets of the day. After a tour 
through the Low Provinces the Englishmen returned 
home. The King, "after courteously entertaining of 
them, favourably dismissed them," and " they returned 
to their several professions. 1 ' . . . "Dr. Davenant, 
besides his Collegiate care, to his constant Lectures in 
the Schools" (Fuller, " Church Hist.," xv. 4). Edward 
Davenant, Fellow of Queens', accompanied his uncle to 
Holland : leave of absence was granted him by the 
College " and all his allowances till his return, as yf hee 
wer at home." This College order is dated Oct. 6th 
1618 and initialled J. D. (Searle, p. 413). 

In 1621 Dr. Davenant was nominated to the See of 
Salisbury. His promotion was due to the warm recom- 


mendations of Dr. John Williams, then Dean of West- 
minster, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Keeper. 
Williams had learnt to value and admire Davenant at 
Cambridge, and " being warm in favour " now secured 
his advancement. " Twelve years he had been Public 
Reader in Cambridge, and had adorn'd the Place with 
much Learning, as no Professor in Europe did better 
deserve to receive the labourer's Peny at the twelfth 
Hour of the Day " (Hacket, " Life of Williams "). A 
curious circumstance in connexion with the appointment 
was that Davenant succeeded his brother-in-law at Salis- 
bury. Robert Toulnesonne or Townson, whose name 
stood next to Davenant's on the list of Fellows at 
Queens', was the son of the under-cook of the College. 
He married Davenant's sister, was chaplain to the King 
and Dean of Westminster 1617-1620, when he became 
Bishop of Salisbury. But he held the See less than a 
year and died leaving a widow and fifteen children. It 
was perhaps with this fact in his mind that the King 
charged Davenant (as he is said by Camden and Wood 
to have done) " not to marry." His widowed sister lived 
with the Bishop till her death in 1634 and, according 
to one unkind and perhaps untrue authority, " Bishop 
Davenant being invested married all his nieces to clergie- 
men, so he was at no expence for their preferment." 
From this point the career of Bishop Davenant does not 
belong to the history of the College. It remains only 
to note that he was a great benefactor to the foundation. 
In 1626 he gave ,£100 for the Library, with which 130 
volumes were purchased : in 1 637 he gave a rent-charge 
on an estate in Sheppey to maintain two scholars and 
pay £10 a year to the Library, and the two livings of 


Cheverel Magna (afterwards exchanged for Seagrave) 
and Newton Toney, Wiltshire. In learning and in 
character Bishop Davenant stands high above most of 
his compeers, and even those who differed widely from 
him speak of him with profound admiration and respect- 
The general feeling entertained for him is shown by the 
extracts from Allport's Life quoted by Mr. Searle, pp. 
427-428. A Life of Bishop Davenant has recently been 
published by Mr. Morris Fuller, a member of the 
College who is descended both from Bishop Davenant 
and Thomas Fuller the historian. As a sample of the 
emoluments received at this time, the year 1621-22 may 
be taken. In that year the President received £5, i.e., 
half a fellowship as stipend and ,£10 for commons, 
four Fellows received £10 in full, ten received £9, the 
other five sums ranging down to £5 8s. 8d., deductions 
being made for absence from College. £14 is allocated 
to the President and Fellows " for laundress and barber " 
(" Magn. Journ.," vi. 2). 

It was Bishop Davenant's wish that Dr. Ward should 
succeed him as Lady Margaret's Professor, and the wish 
was gratified by Dr. Ward's appointment Feb. 23rd, 
1622. There were persons who wished Preston to get 
the Professorship, and, though the Bishop did not share 
this wish, he appears to have desired Preston to succeed 
him as President, and, finding that Preston would not 
be elected, to have contemplated retaining the Master- 
ship with the Bishopric. However he resigned his 
office as President April 22nd, 1622. The accounts 
contain the entries " For a dinner bestowed on my Lord 
of Sarisberie at his departure . . . £5 15,v. 3d., For a 
paire of gloves bestowed on him ... £1 18s. Od." It 


had been supposed, when Davenant was made a Bishop, 
that Dr. Balcanqual of Pembroke, who had been with 
Davenant to the Synod of Dort and afterwards proved 
himself a staunch royalist, would be the new President, 
but the King did not prevent a free election and the 
choice of the body fell on Dr. Mansell. JohnMansell, 
a member of a family that " came in with the Con- 
queror," was elected Fellow in 1600, was in residence 
and held various Cojlege offices 1604-1617, when he 
appears to have vacated his Fellowship. Mansell was 
Vice-Chancellor (1624-1625) when James I. came to 
Cambridge for the last time in Dec. 1624. Prince 
Charles accompanied the King, and the Ambassadors of 
the French King obtained at Cambridge the ratification 
of the marriage contract between the Prince and 
Henrietta Maria. The distinguished visitors were 
entertained with the usual disputations, and during the 
King's stay " in an extraordinary commencement many 
(but ordinary) persons were graduated doctors in 
divinity and other faculties " (Fuller, " Univ. of Camb.," 
viii. 11). The most exciting event of Dr. Mansell's 
tenure of the Presidentship was the contested election 
for the Chancellorship in 1626. The Duke of Bucking- 
ham, who was then under impeachment by the House 
of Commons, was the Court candidate, but many 
members of the Senate, not liking the interference of the 
Court, resolved to support the Earl of Berkshire, the 
son of the late Chancellor. Among those who were most 
active in canvassing for the Duke was Dr. Mountaigne, 
now Bishop of London, but he " found his own College 
most bent and resolved another way to his no small dis- 
contentment." In the end the Duke was elected by 


108 votes to 106, Dr. Mansell and two Fellows of 
Queens' supported the Duke, but the majority of the 
Fellows, including Edward Martin, went against him. 

The Duke was as pleased as the House of Commons 
was displeased at this election. The House resolved to 
send a letter to the University to signify then- dislike 
of the election " and require them to send some to the 
House to inform them." But the King signified his 
pleasure that the letter should not be sent, and in 
answer to a representation from the House replied that 
" concerning the Election itself his Majesty is far from 
conceiving it a Grievance: for he never heard that 
Crimes objected were to be taken as proved ; or that 
a Man should lose his Fame or good Opinion in the 
World, upon an Accusation only." The dissolution of 
Parliament stopped further discussion. The Duke 
visited Cambridge, and showed himself ready to become 
a great benefactor to the University, especially to the 
library, but Felton's dagger ended his life and his 
Chancellorship Aug. 23rd, 1628. 

In Feb. 1628 Thomas Edwards, M.A., late of Queens', 
was charged before the Vice-Chancellor with having in 
a sermon at St. Andrew's Church preached against 
obedience to superiors. He recommended that in cases 
of doubt earthly superiors, as tutors, husbands, masters, 
should not be consulted but " a man in whom the 
Spirit of God dwells." He explained that he meant 
only that they should not be obeyed, if they advised 
contrary to the word of God. He was ordered to repeat 
this explanation in St. Andrew's and to send in a certifi- 
cate that he had done so. This Thomas Edwards was 
afterwards a well-known Puritan divine and author of 


Gangraena. Fuller, who knew him very well, says that 
he " was often transported beyond due bounds with the 
keenness and eagerness of his spirit ; and therefore I have 
just cause in some things to suspect him. 1 ' But Fuller 
himself is the most interesting person who belonged to 
Queens' at this time. The nephew of Bishop Davenant, 
he was admitted Pensioner in 1621 and took his M.A. 
in 1628 when he was 20. His uncle naturally hoped 
that he would get a Fellowship at Queens', and the 
President held out some hopes that he would do so. 
But, although no less than seven Fellows were elected 
just before Michaelmas 1628, Fuller was not one of them. 
So, in consequence of the friendship of Bishop Davenant 
with Dr. Ward, Fuller migrated to Sidney in 1629, 
"that he might be conveniently placed for the con- 
tinuance of his studies, till he should be otherwise 
disposed of." 

Three famous members of the College died at this 
time, viz., Sir Edward Villiers, half-brother to the first 
Duke of Buckingham, James I.'s favourite, Ambassador 
to Bohemia, President of Munster ; Thomas Middleton, 
the dramatist ; and James Ley, Baron Ley, Lord 
Treasurer. (See Searle, p. 459.) Another famous member 
of the College, Dr. Henry Butts, Master of Corpus, 
shewed heroic courage during the terrible plague which 
visited Cambridge in 1630. He was twice re-elected 
Vice-Chancellor in consequence. But when the King 
and Queen visited the University in 1632 — on which 
occasion the "Rival Friends," by Peter Hausted of Queens', 
author of Senile Odium, was performed before their 
Majesties — poor Dr. Butts' mind became unhinged by 
the excitement and he was found hanged in his chamber 


on Easter Day. Seldom has an honourable and useful 
life ended so sadly and tragically. On April 17th, 1630, 
" The Colledge broke up, so did the University, to avoid 
the infection of the plague dangerously spred in the 
towne. It was then agreed that fellows should have 
their whole allowance, during the time of the dissolution, 
whether they were absent or present," and on Oct. 29th 
this grant for absence was continued till the Audit (Old 
Parchment Register, Searle, p. 461). In July 1630 the 
sum of 2s. was expended on " pitch, tarr &c. to air the 
Officers and Schollars Chambers.'" Dr. Mansell died 
Oct. 7th, 1631. He left a widow and a daughter. 

There is an enactment, that comes up repeatedly at 
this period, which is strange according to modern notions. 
Thus Dec. 19th, 1625, the Vice-Chancellor and Heads 
made a decree, reciting that, contrary to the ancient 
statutes of the University and Colleges, boys and men, 
ignorant of letters and altogether unapt to make any 
progress in the studies of the University ; and women 
besides had crept within the college walls, to do those 
works which used to be done by. indigent students to 
help to bear their charges, from whence great damage 
had accrued to poor scholars and scandal to the Uni- 
versity at home and obloquy abroad. To check these 
evils it was decreed that no boys or men ignorant of 
letters should be permitted in the Colleges, unless they 
were College servants or private servants who only do 
their own master's work : that no woman shall be 
allowed to enter except as a sick -nurse or a laundress, 
and even then the age is specified and the number 
limited. (Cooper, "Ann.,'" iii. 182.) During the 
plague of 1630 Mr. Mead writing from Christ's says, 


" We have taken three women into our Colledge . . , 
Two are Bedmakers, one a Laundresse. I hope the next 
Parlement will include us in y r generall Pardon." 
Evidently " the poor scholar,'" who " valeted " his 
well-to-do comrade, was considered to be in danger of 
being ousted by men and women from the town. The 
Heads were anxious to preserve " the poor scholar " from 
extinction, and by strictly limiting the amount of menial 
service employed from outside the College took pains to 
preserve for the " poor scholar " the slender emoluments 
which he enjoyed. The porter, the cook, the steward 
" were all alike on the foundation and generally recruited 
from the subsizars " (Mullinger, ii. 399). At Queens 1 
College an order was passed Sept. 17th, 1636, " that the 
Beere Butler shall bee henceforward always a schollar of 
this Colledge, to continue in that place upon his good 
behaviour till hee bee M r . of Arts, or have time for that 
degree, and not longer " (Old Parch. Reg. 130). 



" Such as do build their faith upon 
The holy text of pike and gun ; 
Decide all controversies by 
Infallible artillery ; 
And prove their doctrine orthodox 
By apostolic blows and knocks." 

Butler, Hudibras, i. i. 

President: Edward Martin, 1631-1662 : Herbert Palmer intruded 
1644- 1647 ; Thomas Horton intruded 1647-1660. 

On Dr. Mansell's death Edward Martin was elected 
seventeenth President of Queens 1 College, October 16th, 
1631. His whole-hearted loyalty to the Church of 
England and to the King, with the sufferings which his 
devotion entailed upon him in the troubled years of 
the Civil War and the Commonwealth, makes him a 
romantic figure. Little is known of the first part of 
his life. He appears to have been a member of a 
family of scholars from Lloyd's statement (" Memoires, 11 
p. 461), "that he had six ancestors in a direct line 
learned before him, and six libraries bequeathed to him, 11 
to have belonged to a Cambridge family, and to have 
been about fifty when he was elected President. He 
entered the College in 1605 as a sizar, held a scholar- 


ship 1608-9, took the M.A. degree 1612 and was 
admitted Fellow 1617. For the next ten or eleven 
years he was busily employed in College work and 
held the living of Hockington (Oakington) 1625-30, 
when he was preferred to Conington. From 1628-31 
he held an appointment, which perhaps shows that 
the views he entertained in later life were fully de- 
veloped at this date and which certainly tended to 
confirm him in his opinions, viz., the post of Chaplain 
to William Laud, first as Bishop of Bath and Wells, 
then as Bishop of London. The Archbishop of Can- 
terbury and the Bishop of London licensed books to 
be printed, and their Chaplains examined works intended 
for the press. In his capacity of Chaplain to the 
Bishop of London, Martin in 1630 licensed a book 
entitled "An Historicall Narration of the Judgment of 
some most Learned and Godly English Bishops, Holy 
Martyrs and others, concerning God's election and the 
Merits of Christ's death." The purpose of this book 
was to prove that the Reformers were Arminians and 
that Arminianism was the doctrine of the Church of 
England. The book gave great offence, and the 
notorious Prynne in particular took pains to make 
Bishop Laud acquainted with the history of the 
treatise and to get the work withdrawn. Failing to 
move Laud, Prynne procured the suppression of the 
book by the Archbishop Abbot. Bishop Laud ad- 
mitted to the Primate that his Chaplain had done ill 
to license the book, but said that "he had given him 
such a ratling for his paines, that he would warrant 
His Grace he should never meddle with Arminian 
Books or Opinions more." This the Archbishop re- 


ported to Prynne, but Prynne was dissatisfied. He 
said that Martin had preached Arminianism at St. 
Paul's Cross, and that, whereas he should be censured 
by the High Commission, he was promoted by the 
Bishop to a great living and to the headship of 
Queens' College. The great living was the Rectory of 
Uppingham, to which Martin was instituted October 
18th, 1631. If any influence was required, no doubt 
Bishop Laud could easily have induced the King to 
nominate his Chaplain for election to be President. 
However, he was unanimously elected, and there is only 
Prynne's unsupported statement that 'the choice was 
due to Bishop Laud's influence. 

The new President took the D.D. degree by royal 
mandate in March 1632, when the King and Queen 
visited Cambridge. Some of the persons recommended 
for degrees were unsatisfactory to the University, and 
the Vice-Chancellor Dr. Butts is accused of having 
earned some degrees — Dr. Martin's in particular — 
" with much disorder and violence." But this rests on 
the statement of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, who is as unfair 
to men of Anglican views as Prynne himself. (See 
Searle, pp. 466-469.) On the occasion of the royal 
visit two plays were acted, " The Rival Friends " by 
Peter Hausted of Queens' and " The Jealous Lovers " 
by Thomas Randolph of Trinity. Although by Dr. 
Butts' influence precedence was given to Hausted's play, 
Randolph's was far the more successful, and the failure 
of " The Rival Friends " was one of the causes which 
contributed to Dr. Butts' derangement. But amongst 
those who acted in Hausted's comedy was John Pearson, 
son of Robert Pearson, a former Fellow of Queens', who 


was admitted sizar June 10th, 1631, but just after this, 
March 28th, 1632, migrated as scholar to King's 
(Searle, p. 509). This was the illustrious Bishop of 
Chester, " Pearson on the Creed." It is something that 
so great a name should have adorned the boards of the 
College, even though, as in the case of Whitgift and 
Fuller, other foundations can lay claim to a share in the 
glory reflected by Pearson's sober judgment and vast 
learning upon Cambridge and the Church of England. 
Hausted was Dr. Martin's Curate at Uppingham and 
brought trouble upon himself and annoyance upon his 
Rector by a sermon preached before the University in 
1634. His object appears to have been to inculcate a 
reverent and orderly service, but he foolishly attacked 
other nations, notably the Dutch, as too slovenly. In 
consequence he was stopped, brought before the Vice- 
Chancel lor and suspended from preaching before the 
University. The facts of the case are set forth in a 
letter of Dr. Martin's to William Bray, Chaplain to 
Laud, now Archbishop (Searle, pp. 511-512). 

Laud, as Archbishop, wished to visit the University. 
The question of his jurisdiction was raised, and the 
Heads, except Drs. Beale, Martin and Sterne, the three 
royalist sufferers of the Civil War, submitted to the 
Archbishop that the University was " exempt from the 
metropolitical jurisdiction and visitation of the See of 
Canterbury." Oxford also questioned the Archbishop's 
right, and the matter was referred to the King in 
Council, who after hearing counsel for the Universities 
and the Primate determined in favour of the Arch- 
bishop's claim (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 276). The visita- 
tion never took place, but in preparation for it a paper 


was forwarded to the Archbishop and endorsed by him 
" Certain Disorders in Cambridge to be considered of in 
my visitation," which is supposed to have been drawn 
up by Dr. Cosin, Master of Peterhouse, or Dr. Sterne, 
Master of Jesus. The paper enumerates "Common 
Disorders in the University'" and "Speciall Disorders 
in y c Church and Chappelles " : it ends " in the other 
Colleges, St. Joh. Qu. Pet. Pemb. & Jes. they endeavor 
for order and have brought it to some good passe. Yet 
here for Apparel and fasting night suppers are they 
faultie still, which with any other thinge amisse will be 
willingly represented " (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 283). The 
Colleges, which thus are noted as being better than 
the rest, are those where the known principles of the 
Masters would strive for " decency and order." 

When Sylvester Adams, Fellow of Peterhouse, was 
brought up in 1637 for a sermon before the University, 
in which he maintained the necessity of confession to a 
priest, Dr. Martin was one of the Heads who saw no 
need of insisting on a recantation. There were several 
meetings, and in the end there was a slight majority 
against the sermon, but no recantation seems to have 
been made. Anthony Sparrow, of Queens', afterwards 
Bishop of Exeter and of Norwich, also justified the con- 
fession of sins to priests. Being impugned for this by 
the Vice-Chancellor, he went to London and got his 
sermon licensed by the Archbishop's Chaplains and 
printed. " He hereupon returned in triumph to Cam- 
bridge, to the great griefe and discouragement of the 
Protestant, but extraordinary encouragement of the 
Popish party there." This is Prynne's version, but 
another account is that the sermon was printed " at 


the request of the Vice-Chancellor and Heads " (Cooper, 
" Ann.," iii. 288). 

The whole " High Church " movement in the Uni- 
versity was intensely distasteful to the Roundhead 
party. The changes which had been made, such as 
placing the Holy Table close to the east end of churches 
and chapels, engaged the attention of both the Short 
and the Long Parliaments. It was definitely ordered in 
April 1641 that no students should be forced to sub- 
scribe to Canon 36, and in September of the same year the 
House of Commons made orders that the Colleges should 
remove the Communion Tables from the east end of 
their Chapels, should take away their rails and level the 
chancels. They were to remove all crucifixes, " scandalous 
pictures 11 of any of the persons of the Trinity or of the 
Virgin, to abolish all basins, tapers and candlesticks 
from the Tables, and to give up bowing at the name of 
Jesus and turning towards the East. In these orders it 
is easy to see the intense Puritan spirit which brought 
Archbishop Laud to the scaffold. When the Primate 
was put upon his trial, one of the charges made against 
him was of having countenanced superstitious obser- 
vances and practices in the University, and among the 
witnesses called to prove this against him was the 
learned John Wallis, afterwards Fellow of Queens' and 
Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford, who deposed 
that the "innovations 1 ' were "brought in since the 
Archbishop's time by means of Byshop Wren, Doctor 
Cosins, Dr. Martin and others, all Canterburies 
great favorites " (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 289). At the 
moment when the orders of Parliament were issued, the 
Royalists in Cambridge were strong enough to disregard 


them, but events were marching on apace, the seizure of 
the five members in Jan. 1642 made the Civil War 
inevitable, and days of terrible trial and distress were in 
store for the Cambridge Colleges. It would seem that 
coming events had cast their shadows before. The 
entries during the preceding years had steadily fallen off 
and the number of residents had seriously diminished. 
We have seen that in 1621 the members of Queens 1 
College numbered two hundred and thirty. In 1641 a 
poll tax was assessed on the Colleges : the numbers at 
Queens' had fallen to one hundred and twenty-four and 
the total of the University to two thousand and ninety- 
one (Cooper, " Ann., 1 ' iii. 315). 

The " Associated Counties," of which the town of 
Cambridge was the headquarters, exercised so powerful 
an influence on the issue of the Civil War, that the 
University is commonly lost sight of in the Parlia- 
mentarianism of East Anglia as a whole, and it is 
erroneously supposed that Cambridge was far less loyal 
than was actually the case. The position of the Uni- 
versity and the prevalent feelings of the Eastern Counties 
have been carefully described by Mr. Kingston in his 
most interesting volume "East Anglia and the Great 
Civil War. 1 ' As Mr. Kingston shows, Cambridge was 
quite as loyal to the King as Oxford. But the two 
Universities were very differently situated. " Oxford 
was the Mecca of the Royalists and Cambridge the head- 
quarters of the Associated Counties." The side taken 
by the Eastern Counties generally in the war is to be 
explained mainly by two considerations. In the first 
place a fervent Puritanism prevailed. In the second 
place there were comparatively few great families, con- 


nected with the Court and influencing their followers 
and dependants, resident in that part of the country. 
And Cambridgeshire in particular has never boasted a 
long list of great county families, such for instance as 
Hertfordshire has always been able to show. Of the 
gentry too not a few were Parliamentarians. Such 
names as Cromwell, Manchester, Montague, Desborough, 
Sir Dudley North, Sir Samuel Luke (" Hudibras"), 
represented some of the best blood of the Eastern 
Counties. There was blood as good on the other side. 
But the Royalists were quite outnumbered, and there- 
fore for the most part unable to move. When an 
opportunity presented itself, they were ready enough to 
shew themselves, for example Lord Capel (a Queens' 
man, Preston's pupil Sir Arthur Capel), Sir C. Lucas 
and Sir G. Lisle at Colchester. It is a mistake to 
suppose that the leaders of East Anglia all fought 
a outrance in the spirit of Cromwell. They were for 
the most part " Moderates," to the last they respected 
the person of the King, and their object was to reform 
religion rather than government. Such was the intruded 
President, Herbert Palmer, who was a well-born gentle- 
man. Altogether the Eastern Counties viewed the 
struggle, mainly if not entirely, from a religious stand- 
point. What roused them was the " No Popery " cry : 
the Ship-money excited little real discontent. It will 
be seen that the University was unfortunately placed. 
The town of Cambridge was stragetically important. It 
commanded the Eastern Counties and was the advanced 
post of the Parliament, and as such it was strongly 
garrisoned and fortified. " Committees " were constantly 
sitting, a watchful eye was kept upon the Royalist 


gownsmen, and they were kept down with a strong hand 
from the first. 

To return from these considerations to the course of 
events, on March 12th, 1642, the young Prince, after- 
wards Charles II., was received by the University with 
such enthusiasm, that two days later (March 14th) the 
King, "then departing from the Parliament," 1 paid a 
flying visit with the Prince on his way from Newmarket 
to Huntingdon. The University received him with 
such vehement acclamation as more than compensated 
any lack of enthusiasm in the county and the town. 
On parting the King promised the Vice-Chancellor : 
" Mr. Vice-Chancellor, whatsoever becomes of me, I will 
charge my sonne upon my blessing to respect the Uni- 
versity. 11 When the University Printer, Roger Daniel, 
issued the King's Proclamation of Array, the Parlia- 
ment sent down the University members to see that its 
own Proclamations were read, charging them to procure 
certificates from the Heads of Colleges of the reading of 
the same (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 325). One of the clergy 
who refused to read the Parliament's Proclamation was 
Daniel Chandler, of Oakington. When he came to the 
words " the House of Commons " he threw the paper 
away, " What have I to do with the House of Com- 
mons ? " and hastened off to join the King. When the 
King wrote from York, in June 1642, asking for contri- 
butions for his defence against the Parliament, which he 
would repay with 8 per cent, interest, " as soon as it 
should please God to settle the distractions of the King- 
dom," Dr. Martin was foremost in furthering the King's 
cause. Dr. Martin himself lent £100 and ten of the 
Fellows (amongst them Sparrow, the future President 


and Bishop) £85, a very large sum, as will appear when 
it is considered that St. John's, with the royalist Dr. 
Beale as its Head, sent no more than £150. In July 
1642 the King asked for the College Plate, promising 
to return the Plate or its value when the troubles were 
ended. Queens' College, " by the unanimous act and 
consent of Master and Fellows," promptly packed and 
despatched the Plate, sending in all 591 ounces of gilt 
plate and 923 ounces of white plate. The complete list 
will be found in Searle, pp. 518-520: some of the most in- 
teresting items of the articles of gilt plate are Dr. Perne's 
bowl with a cover, Bishop Jegon's bowl with a cover, 
the Earl of Huntingdon's bowl with a cover, Dean 
Tindall's tankard, the Earl of Lincoln's bowl with a 
cover weighing 109 ounces. Of the white plate John 
Mansell's four pots, Bishop Mountaigne's Poculum 
Caritatis, Thomas, John and William Cromwell's flagon, 
Arthur Capel's and Thomas Fairfax's (grandfather of 
the Parliamentary Commander) tankards, and Bishop 
Chaderton's bowl. Other Colleges sent their plate about 
the same time : and, although Cromwell, member for 
Cambridge, and his brother-in-law Walton, member for 
Huntingdon, lay in ambush near Lolworth to intercept 
the plate, the greater part of it was conveyed in safety 
to the King at Nottingham. Part, however, was seized 
by Cromwell and its value is stated at £20,000, but, as 
the portion which reached the King and which consti- 
tuted the larger part of what was sent, is valued at 
£8,000 or £10,000, the amount cut off by Cromwell 
must have been exaggerated. It is curious " to picture 
the grim Oliver lying in ambush with his disorderly 
band of peasants on foot" to catch the flagon presented 


by his forbears " Thomas, John and William Cromwell," 
and there can be little doubt that, had it been possible 
to consult those gentlemen on the subject, they would 
have greatly preferred that their flagon should go to the 
King rather than come into the hands of their rebel 
kinsman. But Cromwell was wonderfully active at this 
crisis. He seized the Castle : the town was committed 
to his charge (Aug. 17th, 1642) in conjunction with the 
Mayor and three Aldermen, with power " to disarm all 
Popish Recusants, and all other dangerous and ill- 
affected Persons, who have opposed the Orders and Pro- 
ceedings of Parliament, or endeavoured to oppress the 
People, by the Commission of Array, or otherwise' 1 
(Cooper, "Ann.," iii. 331). 

In all the Royalist efforts of the Colleges the Heads 
of Queens 1 , St. John's and Jesus, Drs. Martin, Beale, and 
Sterne, had been prominent. And together with Bishop 
Wren they attempted to execute the King's Commission 
of Array. Accordingly they were seized by Cromwell 
on Aug. 30. They were treated 

"with all possible scorn and contempt, especially Cromwell 
behaving himselfe most insolently towards them, and when 
one of the Doctors made it a request to Cromwell, that he 
might stay a little to put up some linnen, Cromwell denyed 
him the favour ; and whether in a jeere, or simple malice 
told him, that it was not in his commission." 

This was an ominous beginning, and what followed 
was of a piece with it. It was ordered that the Bishop 
of Ely and the three Doctors should be conveyed to 
Blackwall, and from thence by water to the Tower of 
London. The three Heads, tied on their horses, were 


paraded through the villages which they passed, the 
people being called out to abuse and revile them. They 
were not taken by water, but "led captive through 
Bartholomew Faire and so as farre as Temple Barre," 
suffering every possible insult and indignity on the way. 
The Archbishop was already in the Tower, but the 
Bishop of Ely and the Cambridge Heads were debarred 
from seeing or speaking to him. After some days con- 
finement the three Heads petition that, as they are 
forced by their imprisonment " to neglect both their 
owne private affaires and the publique dutyes of their 
severall places'" and are put to ruinous expenses, 
" they shall be released upon their bonds to appear 
whenever called for." Their appeal was referred to the 
Committee for the safety of the Kingdom (Sept. 20th) ; 
no reasons were stated for their committal, although 
they petitioned for such statement (Sept. 27th); and 
their position was aggravated by the order "that all 
Malignants and Delinquents that were sent for should 
bear their own charges'''' (Dec. 2nd). On Dec. 26th a 
petition was read from the three Colleges, representing 
the injury suffered by them in the long detention of 
their Heads and urging that the presence of their 
Masters in Cambridge was specially necessary at that 
season for the Audit, the choice of Scholars and 
officers and other important business. This also was 
referred to the Committee for the Safety of the King- 
dom, and nothing was done for the prisoners, until on 
Jan. 11th, 1643, Sir Philip Stapleton, who had been 
Martin's pupil at Queens 1 , procured that they should be 
transferred to Lord Petre's house in Aldersgate Street. 
Before they were transferred they had to pay the officers 


of the Tower £80 a-piece, and were thought to have got 
off cheaply. At Lord Petre's house they were kept 
several months. They could obtain neither trial nor 
release, " unlesse to free their bodies they should ensnare 
their souls by loanes of money to be imployed against 
the King, or take impious Oathes or Covenants.'" 

On April 1st, 1643, was passed the Ordinance for 
sequestering the estates of "malignant" clergy and 
Dr. Martin's private property was seized, together with 
the £250 received by him for the College from the 
executors of Humphrey Davies (p. 133). In Aug. 1643 the 
unfortunate Masters were put on board a small coal-ship 
at Wapping, and confined under hatches with three or 
fourscore persons of quality, so that many succumbed to 
the ill-treatment. The survivors it was proposed to 
sell as slaves to Algiers or the West Indies ! This 
would be thought incredible were not the evidence clear. 
Calamy indeed treats the statement as a fiction and 
advises Walker to expunge the statement from the 
"Sufferings,' 1 but the passage quoted by Mr. Searle 
(p. 485) from Vicars' " Jehovah-Jireh or God in the 
Mount " " renders the barbarous actions above related 
less improbable." Finally, after eight days in this 
" Little Ease," Dr. Martin was with others transferred 
' to the Bishop of Ely's house at Holborn, where he 
remained a prisoner for five years. 

Meanwhile, outside his prison, the President's enemies 
were active against him. In pursuance of the powers 
granted to Cromwell against Popish recusants and 
malignants, spoilers were at work. The University 
complained that " certain men had commenced to 
sequestrate the libraries and goods of some of the 


masters, 1 ' and, although on the representation of the 
Earl of Holland, Chancellor of the University, Parlia- 
ment ordered, March 4th, 1643, that no outrage or 
violence should be offered to the Colleges or their 
members, property was pillaged and libraries plundered. 
Apparently Dr. Martin's library was taken at this time. 
All his preferments were likewise stripped from him. 
He figures in the " First century of Scandalous Malig- 
nant priests " : his views are misrepresented and his 
aims grossly distorted. (See Searle, p. 487.) On March 
13th, 1643, he was removed by the Earl of Manchester 
from the Presidentship "for opposing the proceedings 
of Parlyament and other scandalous acts in the Uni- 
versity of Cambridge," a form which afforded some 
amusement to the sufferers, "as tho' Opposing had 
referred to other Scandalous Acts as well as to the 
Proceedings of Parliament." Dr. Martin was a deter- 
mined Royalist and a strong High Churchman, but it is 
hardly necessary to say that there was nothing 
" scandalous " in his life and actions. He was a high- 
minded man of strict life and unselfish aims, who would 
fain see others living as he lived himself. 

Dr. Beale after this got exchanged and joined the 
King at Oxford, but Dr. Martin and Dr. Sterne remained 
in durance. Dr. Martin appears to have been sum- 
moned, by the Archbishop's request, to give evidence 
about the licensing of the u Historicall Narration," the 
circumstances of which the Primate himself was unable 
to recall. Archbishop ■ Laud asked that Drs. Martin, 
Haywood and Sterne should be allowed to attend him 
before his execution ; this was refused, but in the end 
Dr. Sterne was permitted to go accompanied by Stephen 


Marshall and Herbert Palmer. Thus Archbishop Laud 
asked for the Royalist President of Queens 1 and got the 
intruded Parliamentarian in his stead. When Ely 
House was given up to wounded soldiers, Dr. Martin 
was to have been sent to the Marshalsea, but again his 
old pupil, Sir Philip Stapleton, contrived to arrange 
that with Dr. Sterne he should be returned to Lord 
Pete's, where he continued to the end of his captivity. 
He drew up a clever but sarcastic petition, unfortunately 
too long to be quoted here, in June 1647, which he 
begged the Earl of Manchester to present to the Lords 
(Searle, pp. 496-503). Shortly afterwards Drs. Martin 
and Sterne were brought before the Committee of the 
House of Commons for Prisoners. Dr. Sterne was 
released on bail, but Dr. Martin remained in confine- 
ment, until he escaped by the help of Mr. Welden, a 
sequestered Leicestershire parson. This was about 
Aug. 1648, and for nearly two years he lived in disguise 
under the name of Matthews, at Thorington, Suffolk, 
with Henry Coke, a younger son of Sir Edward Coke, 
who had been a fellow-commoner at Queens'. In 1650 
he was captured by some soldiers from Yarmouth, taken 
to London and committed prisoner to the Gate-house, 
Westminster, by Bradshaw, President of the Council. 
During Bradshaw's absence, by means of Colonel Walton, 
a member of the Council, he was released, and returning 
into Suffolk, remained there under his own name until 
he went beyond sea. He lived for the most part at 
Lord Hatton's house in Paris for seven or eight years 
before the Restoration. He was distinguished during 
,this time of exile for his unshaken fidelity to the Church 
of England. He would join neither Calvinists nor 


Papists, but consorted with a body of his brother 
Churchmen, and, taunted as he had been with Popery, 
refused, it is said, overtures from the Church of Rome, 
saying " He had rather be a poor son of the afflicted 
but primitive Church of England, than a rich Member 
of the flourishing but corrupt Church of Rome." (See 
Searle, p. 505.) In a letter to Mr. Richard Watson, 
written in 1660 shortly before his return, Dr. Martin 
speaks of his long sufferings in the following terms : — 

" But in answer to your very necessary interrogatories : I 
can answer but for one, who having been habituated these 
eighteen years, to nothing but prisons, ships, wanderings 
and solitude, hath alwaies been very well satisfied with one 
Meal a day, and at night a Crust of Bread, and a Cup of 
any Drink. That I most desire everywhere is Cider, or, in 
defect of that, water (if it bee anything neer so good as 
here at Paris) for I drank no wine for thirteen years 
together, before I came out of England" (Searle, p. 507). 

From this narrative of Dr. Martin's long and cruel 
imprisonment it is time to return to the fortunes of the 
College of which he was President. The Colleges were 
in a deplorable condition during the year 1643. The 
work of fortifying Cambridge was pushed on. The 
town was full of the troops raised by Cromwell from the 
Associated Counties. The Querela Cantabrigiensis 
complains that " the soldiers have seized and taken 
away materials of our intended buildings of the worth 
of £300 or £400. . . . have pulled down, demolished 
and defaced five or six fair bridges of stone and timber," 
i.e., the bridges of St. John's, Trinity, Garret Hostel^ 
King's and Queens'. Some Colleges were turned into 


prisons for Royalists, others were converted into barracks 
for Parliamentarian troops, " who took the beds from 
under the scholars." Heads and Fellows were seized, 
students were frightened away, the University cere- 
monies were pretermitted from fear of violence, books 
and furniture were carted off, " blankets, 1 ' " leather 
chairs" and "fire-irons 11 were scheduled, e.g., the 
books of Mr. Coldham of Queens 1 are set down at £\0. 
The Royalist verses of Francis Quarles do not greatly 
exaggerate the sentiments of the Parliamentarian troops, 
as reflected by their actions in Cambridge. 

" We'll pull down Universities 

Where learning is profest, 
Because they practice and maintain 

The language of the beast ; 
We'll drive the Doctors out of doors, 

And all that learned be, 
We'll cry all arts and learning down, 

And hey, then up go we." 

Parliament demanded a loan of i?6000 from the 
University, and when, the Vice-Chancellor being a 
prisoner, such Heads as were still left in Cambridge 
declared that it was "against true religion and good 
conscience for any to contribute to the Parliament in 
this war, 11 the officers of the Parliament took the money 
by force from the bursars and from the tenants of the 
Colleges. Even Lord Manchester, the Parliamentarian 
general, supported the petition of the University against 
sequestration ; " he doubts not that your Lordships in 
your wisdoms will think it better to endeavour the 
reforming of the University rather than to hazzard the 


dissolving of it." The Parliament then issued orders 
protecting the University and Colleges from the 
sequestration of their property, and directed the Earl 
of Manchester " to make them orthodox. 11 

It had been ordained in September 1641, as already 
stated, that in all churches and chapels altars and stone 
tables should be demolished, that the Communion Table 
should be removed from the east end, the chancel 
levelled, all crucifixes, crosses, pictures, &c, taken away. 
At first the heads of the several Colleges were left to 
execute this order in Cambridge, but as they were not 
zealous enough a more active agent was employed. In 
December 1643 the infamous William Dowsing was 
commissioned by the Earl of Manchester to remove all 
vestiges of popish superstition from the churches in the 
Associated Counties. What he did may be given in 
the words of his own journal, in which he recorded his 
proceedings :• 

"At Queens' College, December 26th, we beat down 
about a 110 Superstitious Pictures besides Cherubims and 
Ingravings, where none of the Fellows would put on their 
Hatts in all the time they were in the Chapell, and we 
digged up the steps for three hours and brake down ten or 
twelve Apostles and Saints within the Hall" (Cooper, 
"Ann.,"iii. 365). 

The "ingravings, 11 as Mr. Searle says, p. 526, 
probably included some of the brasses on the slabs 
in the floor. 

On January 22nd, 1644, was passed an Ordinance for 
Regulating the University of Cambridge, and for re- 
moving of Scandalous Ministers in the seven Associated 


Counties (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 369-370). By this the 
Earl of Manchester was empowered to examine all 
members of the University and also the clergy, to 
enforce the Solemn League and Covenant upon them, 
and to constitute Commissions of Inquiry ; and again, 
February 5, both Houses advised that the Earl should 
exercise special care that the Covenant be taken in the 
University. Accordingly, Lord Manchester arrived, 
accompanied by his Chaplains ; he took up his quarters 
at Trinity College, and the Commission of Inquiry sat 
at the " Bear," in Market Passage. On February 24 he 
demanded the Statutes and a list of the members of the 
different Societies, with a statement whether they were 
resident or not ; on February 26 notice was given to the 
Heads to order all members of their Colleges to be in 
residence on March 10 ; and on March 11 he sent for 
the names of all who had left or returned to Cambridge 
since February 24. On the same date, March 11, Mr. 
Coldham, Fellow of Queens', was directed to send him 
the notes of his sermon preached at Great St. Mary's 
on the previous day. Then the work of " reforming " 
the Colleges and " making them orthodox " began in 
earnest. On March 13 Dr. Martin, who had been a 
prisoner since the preceding August, was formally 
deprived of the Presidentship of Queens 1 . On April 3 
the Fellows of Colleges were summoned to appear at 
the " Bear " on the 5th, or else, unless a good reason 
were given for their non-appearance, he would proceed 
to eject them. Accordingly, some sixty Fellows of 
Colleges were ejected on April 8, among them 
Anthony Sparrow, Samuel Rogers, Richard Bryan, and 
Heigham Hills, of Queens', for non-residence and not 


returning to Cambridge on summons. On April 9 
Ambrose Appleby, John Coldham, Edward Natley, and 
Edward Kemp were removed for refusing to take the 
Solemn League and Covenant. On April 11 Thomas 
Marley, Vicar of Eversden, was deprived for refusing to 
take the Covenant ; on June 1 Daniel Chandler, Vicar 
of Oakington, Daniel Wycherley and Jasper Whitehead, 
for refusing to take the Covenant; on August 26th, 
1644, George Bard sey, Thomas Cox and Michael Freer, 
for non-residence and not appearing on summons ; on 
September 26 William Wells and Arthur Walpole, for 
refusing to take the Covenant. One Fellow, Dr. 
Gamaliel Capel, was declared non-socius by the Society 
itself on August 2 for immorality (Searle, p. 549), and 
then the Royalist President and all the eighteen Fellows 
had been removed. All the scholars also were deprived 
— in fact, a clean sweep was made of the whole founda- 
dation. No doubt in part through Dr. Martin's 
influence, Royalist views were very strong in the 
College. No other College, except Peterhouse, suffered 
at the hands of Lord Manchester's Commission to 
anything like the same extent. Thus it does not 
appear that at Trinity Hall or St. Catharine's any of 
the Fellows were ejected; at Corpus only three, at 
King's only six were removed (Cooper, "Ann.," iii. 

And now that the College had been purged of its 
Royalist inmates, men of views more consonant with 
the Parliament's were thrust into their places. The 
person chosen to succeed Dr. Martin as President was 
Herbert Palmer, a member of the College, a gentleman 
and a scholar. He was the son of Sir Thomas Palmer, 


of Wingham, near Canterbury, had been carefully 
educated at home by an accomplished father and a 
very religious mother, learnt French almost as soon as 
he could speak, and could, as he afterwards proved, 
preach in French as well as in English. He entered St. 
John's College as a fellow-commoner, but, "being 
denied his degree at St. John's on account of personal 
deformity," migrated in 1622 to Queens', where he was 
elected Fellow in 1623 by a Royal mandate from 
James I. It is curious that Edward Martin was one 
of the minority who refused to obey the mandate and 
voted for Warner Marshall. In the life by Samuel 
Clarke ("Lives of Thirty-Two English Divines") 
Herbert Palmer is said to have taken many pupils, to 
have been a most exemplary tutor, most extraordinarily 
solicitous about his pupils' welfare, and, in particular, 
about their religious instruction. He had private 
means, and was very liberal in money matters. While 
on a visit to his brother he preached at Canterbury 
and was so acceptable that he was asked to take a 
weekly lecture at St. Alphege's. His uncanonical 
method of performing the service brought complaints 
against him, but he was continued in the lectureship by 
Archbishop Abbot, preached to the Huguenots at 
Canterbury in French, and was presented by Laud, 
then Bishop of London, in 1632, to Ashwell, Hertford- 
shire, an appointment which the Archbishop cited at 
his trial as an instance of his impartiality. Herbert 
Palmer vacated his fellowship shortly afterwards 
(Searle, pp. 532-535). At Ashwell he continued to 
show his love of teaching, and took the sons of noble- 
men and gentlemen into his house as pupils. He was 


called in 1643 by Parliament to be a member of the 
Assembly of Divines at Westminster, acted with great 
wisdom as one of the Assessors, and was one of the 
favourite preachers of the Parliamentarians. Palmer 
was one of a sub-committee of five appointed to draw 
up the Directory of Public Worship. His share was 
the catechising ; " yet though he was the best catechist 
in England, his paper on it was not liked.''' Altogether 
he was a cultivated, strenuous and high-minded man. 
Whatever may be thought of some of his views, he 
stood high in aims above most members of his party, 
and no one would have regretted more sincerely or 
spoken out his mind more frankly about later events 
than Herbert Palmer, had he lived to see the end of 
the War and what followed it (see the quotations given, 
Searle, pp. 544, 545). But his restless, fiery spirit 
wore out the puny body, and he died September 1647, 
aged 46. 

Herbert Palmer, then, was appointed President of 
Queens' by the Earl of Manchester and installed by 
the Earl in person in the College Chapel April 11th, 
1644. The following " Solemne promise or protesta- 
tion was made by the Master in the Chappell at the 
time of his admission or installment " : 

" I, Herbert Palmer, being called and constituted by the 
Right Honorable Earle of Manchester (who is authorised 
thereto by an ordinance of Parlyament) to be Master of 
Queenes Colledge in the University of Cambridge, with 
the approbation of the Assembly of Divines now sitting at 
Westminster, doe solemnly and seriously promise in the 
presence of Almighty God the searcher of all hearts, that 
during the time of my continuance in that charge, I shall 


faithfully labour to promote piety and learning in myselfe, 
the fellows, sehollers and students, that doe or shall belong 
to the said Colledge, agreeable to the late solemn National 
league and covenant by mee sworne and subscribed, with 
respect to all the good and wholesome statutes of the said 
Colledge of the University, correspondent to the said 
Covenant, and by all means to procure the good, welfare, 
and perfect reformation both of that Colledge and University 
so farr as to me appertaineth. 

"Herbert Palmer." 
"April 11, 1644." 

The Society, at the date of Mr. Palmer's admission 
consisted of the ten Royalist Fellows, who had not yet 
been ejected and who were mostly non-resident. 
There were no scholars, probably there were hardly 
any students and little or nothing was done in the 
College. A sizar, a pensioner and a Bible-clerk were 
admitted (Searle, p. 540). But on June 11th Lord 
Manchester appointed nine new Fellows, John Wallis, 
Samuel Sillesby, John Wells, Nathaniel Ingelo, John 
Smith, John Hoare, Samuel Glover, William Ames and 
William Whittaker. Of these Hoare and Glover were 
members of St. Catherine's, all the other seven came 
from Emmanuel. The " Puritan College " was naturally 
regarded with great favour by the Parliament, and 
Emmanuel men got at this time at least six Headships 
and innumerable Fellowships. The most famous of 
them Benj amine Whitecote, who was made Provost of 
Kings', set a fine example by allowing his dispossessed 
predecessor, Dr. Collins, "a yearly stipend out of the 
dividend allotted to the Provost." It may also be 
remembered to his credit that he never took the 


Solemn League and Covenant (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 377). 
However, the Emmanuel men sent to Queens 1 were 
either more robust Roundheads or less scrupulous, for 
they all subscribed the Covenant and made before Lord 
Manchester's Committee a promise similar to that 
undertaken by the intruded President, with the 
addition of a clause, whereby they engaged themselves 
to "yield unto Mr. Herbert Palmer, Master of this 
Colledge, all such respect and obedience as the Statutes 
of the said house and laudable customs of the said 
University do require to be given to the Master. 11 
Upon this they were admitted Fellows. Two of them 
were really distinguished men of whom any College 
might be proud, viz., John Wallis and John Smith. 
Wallis, one of the best mathematicians of the time, has 
been already mentioned as a witness against Archbishop 
Laud, from which it may be inferred that his " Puritan " 
views were very strong. He became Savilian Professor 
of Geometry at Oxford in 1649, was one of the earliest 
Fellows of the Royal Society, and, dividing his long life 
between his mathematics and his clerical duties, died at 
the age of 85 in 1703. John Smith was the Cam- 
bridge Platonist, 11 the author of the famous "Select 
Discourses,' 1 published after his death by Dr. Worth- 
ington, in 1660, and highly praised by the late 
Matthew Arnold, as being " much the most considerable 
work left by the Cambridge Platonists and deserving of 
a place in English literary history." John Smith was 
Hebrew Lecturer and Dean. "He was," says Dr. 
Plumptre, " a very useful member as Fellow and Tutor and 
of great reputation for his learning, exemplary conduct 
and singular sweetness of temper." He died Fellow Aug. 


7th, 1652, and was buried in the College Chapel, Dr. 
Patrick, then Fellow, preaching his funeral sermon. 
John Smith was also a great benefactor to the Library, 
to which he left about six hundred volumes. All his 
contemporaries unite in praising alike his great ability 
and his charming personal qualities. John Smith must 
indeed be reckoned among the men of the past whom 
one would wish to have known. But what a pity 
that he took the Covenant ! 

The College now recommenced its life. On June 
20th eleven students, most of them Oxford men, were 
admitted ; on June 21st the first College meeting was 
held and Samuel Sillesby appointed Vice-President; 
on June 24th a fresh election of officers took place. 
Two more Fellows were appointed by Lord Manchester 
on Sept. 13th, viz., Francis Barkdale of Magdalene 
Hall, Oxford, and John Jackson of St. Catharine's ; on 
Dec. 20th, two more Magdalene Hall men, John 
Pypard and Samuel Rayner ; on January 2nd, 1645, 
George Griffith, and on January 4th Nathanial Debanke 
and John Watson of Emmanuel. This makes a total 
of sixteen appointed by Lord Manchester, but as John 
Wallis vacated his Fellowship by marriage in March 
1645 the number of actual Fellows was soon reduced 
to fifteen. After this by an Ordinance of Parliament, 
Feb. 13th, 1646 (Cooper, "Ann., 1 ' iii. 398), the College 
was allowed to fill up the vacancies made by eject- 
ment, and three Fellows were elected in Januar} - , four 
in August 1647. 

Fuller's complaint (" Univ. of Camb.," viii. 40) of the 
character of these intruded Fellows, that " short of the 
former in learning and abilities they went beyond them 


in good affections to the Parliament,'" as if in the 
language of the Querela Cantabrigiensis "the garland 
had been torn from the Head of Learning and placed 
on the dull brows of Disloyal Ignorance," is not wholly 
true of the new body at Queens'. Besides Palmer him- 
self, Wallis and Smith, Ingelo was a cultivated man 
and a highly skilled musician. The most marked 
exception appears to have been Pypard, who was " found 
disorderlie at a taverne in disorderlie companie at eleven 
of the clocke of the night " and admonished. The new 
President was an able and energetic Head. His personal 
character inspired respect even in those whose views 
differed most widely from his own. His influence and 
weight with his party brought him at once a leading 
position in the University. When on April 11th, 
1645, the Heads preferred a petition to Parliament 
(which was granted), praying for exemption from public 
contributions, taxes and impositions, Mr. Palmer was 
the spokesman of the deputation (Cooper, " Ann., 11 iii. 
386). And when the Town endeavoured to upset the 
privileges of the University, Mr. Palmer was one of the 
Heads who again successfully petitioned Parliament on 
the subject. The high praise given to Palmer by 
Clarke in his Life (Searle, p. 551) for his management of 
the College, was on the whole well deserved. He took 
especial pains for the advancement of religion and piety, 
and under his rule the Fellows were as zealous and 
as diligent as the President himself. He was not less 
anxious for the promotion of learning, improved the 
Library and was very liberal to poor scholars. 

" Indeed his resolution was, that so long as he was 
hindered from residing constantly amongst them, by reason 


of his attending on the Assembly at Westminster, he would 
not be a gainer by the place ; but whatsoever profits he 
received, more than would defray the charges of journeys 
and other expenses occasioned by it, he would bestow some 
way or other for the good of the Colledge." 

The College orders of the time attest the general 
care of the new Society. There were to be two 
"common-places " weekly in the Chapel and all resident 
M.A.s were to take their share of these ; the College 
servants were to be looked after " to see if they have 
understanding in religion " ; an " Ethicke " lecture was 
to be delivered daily ; and an examination was to be 
held for scholarships ; candidates for Fellowships were 
to be publicly examined ; and, though the Prayer-book 
was abolished and the Directory for the Public Worship 
had been set up, provision was made for Divine Service 
in the Chapel (Searle, pp. 554-555). One of the first 
persons admitted to the College, as a sizar, after Palmer 
was made President, was Simon Patrick, afterwards 
Bishop of Ely. Patrick in his Autobiography 
("Univ. Lib." Patrick Papers, quoted Searle, pp. 541- 
542) describes the condition of the College under 

" I found myself in a solitary place at first ; . . . there 
were about a dozen scholars, and almost half of the old 
Fellows, the Visitors at first doing no more than putting in 
a majority of new, to govern the College. The other 
rarely appearing were all turned out for refusing the 
Covenant, which was then so zealously pressed, that all 
schollars were summon'd to take it at Trin. Coll. (where 
Lord Manchester had his quarters). Thither I went and 
had it tendered to me, but God so directed me, that I 


telling them my age — eighteen years — was dismiss'd and 
never heard more of it — blessed be God. 

" I had not been long in the College before the Master, 
Mr. Herbert Palmer, took some notice of me, and sent for 
me to transcribe some things he intended for the press ; 
and soon after made me the College Scribe, which brought 
me in a great deal of money, many leases being to be renew'd. 
It was not long before I had one of the best Schollarships in 
the College bestow'd upon me, so that I was advanced to a 
higher rank, being made a Pensioner. But before I was 
Batchellor of Arts this good man dy'd, who was of an 
excellent spirit, and was unwearied in doing good. Though 
he was a little crooked man, yet he had such an authority, 
that the Fellows reverenc'd him as much as we did them, 
going bare, when he passed thro' the Court, which after 
his death was disus'd. 

" I remember very well that being a member of the 
Assembly of Divines, he went oft to London ; and some- 
times stay'd there a quarter of a year. But before he went 
he was wont to cause the Bell to be toll'd to summon us 
all to meet in the Hall. There he made a Patheticall 
Speech to us, stirring us up to pious Diligence in our 
studies, and told us with such seriousness as made us believe, 
that he should have as true an account from those he could 
trust of the behaviour of every one of us in his absence, as 
if he were here present to observe us himself. This he 
said we should certainly find true at his return. And truly 
he was as good as his word, for those youths whom he 
heard well of, when he came back to College, he sent for 
to his Lodgings, and commended them, giving books to 
them that were well maintain'd and money to the poorer 
sort. He was succeeded by a good man, but not such a 


After a short illness, in which his deportment " was 
holy and heavenly," and he prayed that " God would pro- 
vide a faithf ull man for Queens' 1 College,' 1 Herbert Palmer 
passed away in Sept. 1647, and was buried in the new 
church at Westminster (Christ Church), of which he had 
been in charge since its completion. (A list of his works 
will be found Searle, pp. 546-547.) Thomas Horton 
B.D., formerly Fellow of Emmanuel, was by free election 
of the Society chosen to succeed him. Thomas Horton, 
son of Lawrence Horton of the Mercer's Company, had 
been (1638-1640) minister of St. Mary Colechurch, 
London, a donative in the gift of the Mercer's Company, 
he was Professor of Divinity in Gresham College, one of 
the twenty-eight Triers or " Commissioners appointed for 
approbation of publique preachers,'' and had recently 
been appointed preacher to Gray's Inn. In 1649 he 
took the degree of D.D., and was chosen Vice-Chancellor 
in the same year. In the Easter-term of 1651 he 
resigned the Preachership of Gray's Inn and married. 
His marriage, by the Statutes of Gresham College, 
should have vacated his Professorship there, but he had 
sufficient interest, first with the Committee of Parlia- 
ment for reforming the Universities, and afterwards 
with Cromwell as Lord Protector, to get dispensations. 

At the time of Horton's election the University was 
beginning to settle down again. By the end of 1648 
the normal life of the University may be said to have 
been resumed. The walks were laid out again, bridges 
rebuilt (the bridge near Queens' College was rebuilt by 
the Corporation, Cooper, "Ann.," iii. 425), buildings 
repaired, money unearthed, and the students returned 
to their avocations. Thus in the accounts appear such 


items as " for setting up y e organs in y° Parlour (Com- 
bination-room), ,£11 6s. hd.? " for a Kath. peare tree 
wee set in y e Orchyard, 3s. Oct.," " a bush, and a halfe of 
strawberryes and seedes, 5*.," " Christmas boxes (1656), 
11*. 6rf.," "given away to Coll. servants for their Chr. 
boxes (1658), 10,?. 6d." It is clear that the last thing 
the Parliament desired, once their arms were triumphant, 
was to estrange the University. On the contrary they 
were anxious to satisfy and conciliate it, that they 
might boast the support of Cambridge as a set-off 
against the Royalism of Oxford. Hence it was that in 
March 1648 a sum of £2000 was voted by the House of 
Commons towards building and finishing the University 
Library, and a further sum of £500 for buying a 
collection of books, " in the Eastern languages of very 
great value, late brought out of Italy," for the Library 
(Cooper, " Ann./' iii. 421). Again in April 1650, by 
the Act for further provision for ministers and other 
pious uses, £2000 per annum was allocated out of the 
seized tithes for the maintenance of the Heads in the 
Universities, whose incomes were found to be insufficient, 
now that Headships were no longer held in combination 
with Deaneries, Canonries and the like. From the 
statement then drawn up it appears that the value of 
the Presidentship of Queens' was £68 3*. 3d. It was 
proposed to add an augmentation of £50, and so make 
the value £118 3*. 3d. (Cooper, "Ann.," iii. 432). 

Thomas Horton, like his predecessor, was a favourite 
preacher with the Parliamentarians, and the influence 
which he enjoyed with his party was a qualification for 
the post which he had now been elected to fill. He 
was prominent in the various movements of the time. 


When Visitors were appointed for the Universities in 
September 1654, Dr. Horton was one of the Cambridge 
Commissioners (Cooper, " Ann., 11 iii. 461). When the 
University petitioned against the erection of a new 
University at Durham in April 1659, Dr. Horton was 
one of the five delegates then appointed to exhibit the 
petition to Richard Cromwell (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 473). 
And he was not devoid of scholarship, but could write 
a well-turned set of Latin verses. Verses were written 
by him on the conclusion of the peace with Holland, 
1654, on the death of Oliver Cromwell, 1658, and on 
the Restoration of Charles II., 1660. These last are 
given by Mr. Searle (p. 562). 

To secure the Republican form of government Parlia- 
ment ordained in 1649 that Heads, Fellows, graduates 
and officers of the Universities should subscribe the 
"Engagement." The form prescribed was, "I do 
declare and promise that I will be true and faithful to 
the commonwealth of England, as the same is now 
established without a King or House of Lords. 11 It was 
ordered that no person should be admitted to a degree 
or bear any office in the Universities, who had not 
taken this Engagement. In the following year (1650) 
the Committee for regulating the Universities was 
empowered to eject all who refused to make this 
promise, and to place other able and fit persons in their 
room (Cooper, " Ann., 11 iii. 435). The first sufferer under 
this order was Dr. Rainbow, Master of Magdalene, 
afterwards Bishop of Carlisle. Dr. Rainbow appeared 
before the Committee and declared that he could not 
conscientiously take the Engagement, though he would 
undertake to live quietly under the Government. But 


this was not considered satisfactory, and Dr. Rainbow 
was deprived. There is a most interesting letter written 
at this juncture by William Sancroft, afterwards Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, to his brother. He describes the 
pressure put by the Committee at the Bear upon mem- 
bers of the University to force them to the Engagement. 

"It seems the gentlemen think that their victories 
resolve our cases of conscience to their advantage ; and 
that it is but to rout the coward Scots, and all our arguments, 
are answered. But I hope God will enable us to let them 
see they are deceived ; and to teach them that swords and 
pistols, though they may overthrow kingdoms, yet alter no 
principles in divinity." 

Two Fellows of Queens', Jackson and Hore, who had 
been put in by Lord Manchester in 1644, were deprived 
November 14th, 1650, for refusing to take the Engage- 
ment, and Thomas Hunt and William Gore, both 
members of the College, were appointed by the Visitors 
in their stead. William Gore was an intimate friend of 
Simon Patrick's, who had become a Fellow in 1649 and 
in 1652 preached the funeral sermon of the incom- 
parable John Smith. Perhaps the most eminent person 
who refused the Engagement was the Chancellor of the 
University, Lord Manchester himself, who after having 
ejected and intruded so many persons was, November 
27th, 1651, deprived by the Committee of his office. In 
his room a member of Queens' College was appointed 
Chancellor, viz., Oliver St. John, who had entered the 
College as Preston's pupil in 1615, had been Hampden's 
counsel in the Ship-money case, had sat in Parliament, 
had been Solicitor-General, and was now Chief Justice 


of the Common Pleas. Oliver St. John held the 
Chancellorship until the Restoration, when Lord 
Manchester was reinstated, and , St. John resided in 
retirement at Long Thorp, Northamptonshire. St. 
John is one of the very few members of the College who 
were ranged against the King. John Goodwin was a 
strong Republican, and there are a few Puritans, like 
Thomas Edwards and Samuel Fairclough, but they are 
lost in the crowd of Royalists. Among the Royalists 
are Spencer Compton, Earl of Northampton, killed at 
Hopton Heath, John Towers, Bishop of Peterborough, 
Arthur Lord Capel, one of the bravest of Charles' 1 
commanders, Dr. Robert Cottesford, Rector of Had- 
leigh, whose sufferings for the King have made him 
famous, Sir Hamon le Strange, Sir Henry Slingsby, 
Dr. Laurence Bretton, Henry Lord Hastings, Sir 
Orlando Bridgman, Thomas Cawton, and Colonel 
Richard Neville. Altogether the members of the 
College were almost as unanimous as the Fellows in 
their devoted loyalty to the King. 

Bishop Patrick's account of himself throws light on 
the state of things at this time. 

"Being Master of Arts I bent my studies chiefly to 
Theology, and the manner of those times was for young 
men to preach before they were in Holy Orders, and the first 
sermon I preached was at Okeington, April 6, 1651. . . . 
After this I had occasion to go to London, and being bound 
by the Statutes of the College to enter into Holy Orders 
when I was two years Master of Arts, I knew no better 
than to go to a Classis of Presbyters, who then sat at 
London, and was examined by them, and afterwards 
received the imposition of their hands. This afterwards 


troubled me very much, when not long after I met with 
Dr. Hammond upon Ignatius' Epistles and Mr. Thorndike's 
Primitive Government of the Church, whereby I was fully 
convinced of the necessity of Episcopal ordination. This 
made me enquire after a Bishop to whom I might resort, 
and learning that Bishop Hall lived not far off from 
Norwich of which he was Bishop, thither I went with two 
other Fellows of our College and a gentleman (Mr. Gore, 
with whom I had contracted a great Friendship), as a com- 
panion and ^witnesse of what we did. There we were 
received with great kindness by the Reverend old Bishop 
who examined us and gave us many good exhortations, and 
then ordained us in his own parlour at Higham about a 
mile from Norwich, April 5, 1654" (Searle, p. 566). 

The College orders show that the Chapel Service was 
maintained, and if the words are to be understood 
strictly, that the Prayer-book was still used, but 
probably the inference would be hazardous : " December 
19. 1648. It was determined by the Master and 
major part of the Fellows, that chappell should bee 
observed onlie according to statute, notwithstanding 
anie decree to the contrarie.'" 

" From an entry in the Old Parchment Register made in 
Dr. Horton's time, it appears that the strenuous assertor 
of liberty and enemy of arbitrary power, Oliver Cromwell 
(like many others who have supported that character when 
out of power), was far from being the most indulgent to 
liberty, or a strict observer of the rights of men when in it, 
but even followed the example of the House of Stuart and 
of former Princes, in sending his Mandates for the Election 
of Fellows, &c The Entry is as follows : — Resolved by the 
determination of the major part of the Fellows, that Mr. 


Lausun be not admitted Fellow upon the Mandate of my 
Lord Protector, till further addresses made to his Highness 
in that behalf, for as much as they are not satisfy'd in the 
condition mentioned in the sayd mandate," 

So Dr. Plumptre in his MS. He concludes that, as 
there is no mention of the President in the order, he 
had no share in it. But the order is in his handwriting, 
so that it is hardly safe to infer this. John Lawson, 
the person for whose election the mandate was sent, had 
been admitted pensioner 1648, B.A. 1652, M.A. 1656. 
He was afterwards a distinguished physician, Treasurer 
of the College of Physicians 169a, President of the 
College of Physicians 1694. 

The Old Parchment Register records a curious order 
of slightly later date, October 4th, 1658, viz., that " it 
was ordered by the Master and the major part of the 
Fellows, that the two gilded candlesticks be changed for 
other plate and a colledge signet. 1 ' Naturally, as nearly all 
the plate had been sent to the' King, the College could 
have had little at this time. Still the order gives an im- 
pression that things could not have been very flourishing 
when the order was passed, and this impression is con- 
firmed by an order of January 14th, 1653, to reduce the 
number of Fellows to seventeen, the profits of the 
other two to go to the College, till it should be decided 

At the approach of the Restoration Dr. Horton 
began to trim his sails to catch the new breeze. He 
contributed, as did John Wilson, James Spering and 
N. Wragge of Queens', to the Cambridge Verses which 
celebrated that joyful event. There is not much of the 
true Roundhead ring in his lines. 


" Sic tandem, Rex magne, redis, properasque recursu 
Sperato populum conciliare tuum. 
Nee poteras aliter, cum turbida cunctajuissent, 
Teque absente diu turbidiora foreni," 8fc. 

On May 26th, 1660, the House of Lords ordered that 
the Earl of Manchester be admitted to the exercise of 
his Chancellorship of the University of Cambridge, on 
June 1st the Chancellors of the Universities were 
directed to give order that all the Statutes in the Uni- 
versities be put into due execution, and on June 4th 
that the several Colleges in the said Universities shall 
be governed according to their respective Statutes ; and 
that such persons who have been unjustly put out of 
their Headships, Fellowships, or other offices relating to 
the several Colleges or Universities shall be restored 
(Cooper, "Ann.,'' iii. 479). On Aug. 2nd, 1660, Dr. 
Edward Martin was restored to his Mastership after his 
long deprivation, and Dr. Horton on receiving Lord 
Manchester's warrant for Dr. Martin's re-instatement 
quietly retired. But he was still holding his Professor- 
ship at Gresham College and obtained a fresh dispen- 
sation from Charles II. to enable him to retain it. In 
March 1661 when the King's commission was issued for 
the Savoy Conference, Dr. Horton was nominated as 
one of the assessors on the Nonconformist side. But 
according to Baxter, "he never came among them. 11 
However occasion was taken to apply to the Crown to 
vacate his Professorship. George GifFord, who had been 
chosen Professor in 1656 but had been set aside by the 
Protector's dispensation, now laid his case before the 
King. In consequence Dr. Horton's dispensation was 


revoked May 26th, 1661, Mr. Gifford was re-chosen by 
the Trustees and ordered by the letters of revocation to 
be admitted into possession of the Professorship. 
Horton was likewise silenced by the Act of Uniformity 
in 1662. But he afterwards conformed and was pre- 
sented by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's to the 
Vicarage of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate Street. If Baxter's 
statement is correct that " he had seen Dr. Horton give 
the Lord's Supper to the greater part that sat," Horton's 
conformity was not very strict, but it was sufficient to 
keep him in possession of St. Helen's until his death in 
1673. John Wallis, who had been his pupil at 
Emmanuel, published in 1679 "A Hundred Select 
Sermons upon several Texts " with some account of 
Dr. Horton's life. Dr. Wallis speaks very highly of 
his former tutor. No doubt Horton was a man of mark 
and ability, but in character he does not bear comparison 
with his Parliamentarian predecessor, Herbert Palmer, 
any more than with the Royalist, Edward Martin, who 
resumed the Presidentship on his retirement. 

At the Restoration Dr. Martin returned to England 
and was reinstated in his Mastership, Aug. 2nd, 1660, 
by a warrant from the same Earl of Manchester who 
had ejected him, and " who (says Dr. Plumptre) after 
having alleged the Doctor's scandalous acts as the 
ground of that proceeding, now sets forth that he was 
informed that he was wrongfully put out of his Master- 
ship." When he had been restored Dr. Martin entered 
into the Register after the warrant for his expulsion the 
warrant for his restoration with the following note in his 
own hand, one of the most beautiful hands that man ever 


"Aug. 20, 1660. 
"Hucusque ab anno 1643 Martii 13mo., Cantabrigia a 
Perduellibus et Latronibus occupata, Musae suis sedibus el 
domiciliis pulsae sunt; omnia tarn sacra quam prophana 
exinanita, publicata et populata : ipsa statuta et quibus nitebantur 
sacramenta universa explosa sunt et interdicta : Praesidens in- 
super, socii, scholares et quicunque sub habitu scholastico bonis 
Uteris operant navantes ad unum omnes rebus suis omnibus 
spoliati aut in exilium aut in vincla et ergastula sine ulla causae 
dictione missi sunt. In cuius reijidem et testimonium conferat 
Lector prascedentia cum subsequentibus, autographa cum auto- 
graphis. Nolumus enim gravius quicquam dicere quam quod 
Adversariorum calamo exciderit." 

Edvardus Martin, Prxs. 

As a statement of the treatment of the University 
generally and the sufferings of Queens' College in par- 
ticular at the hands of the Parliament and its agents, 
this note, burning with the deep feeling of the writer, 
is not a whit too strong. But, in Dr. Plumptre's words, 

"the impartiality of an historian does not permit me to 
proceed without observing that^-the outrages arid injuries 
here complained of by Dr. Martin are to be imputed to 
those at that time in the supreme power of the nation, and 
the agents employed by them ; not to either the Masters 
or the Fellows they had placed in the College. These, 
though intruded indeed contrary to Law and Statute, yet 
do not seem chargeable with misconduct in the exercise of 
their power, either in the government of the College or the 
management of its affairs. On the contrary many good 
rules for the improvement of its government were made 
while they were in possession, and much attention seems 


to have been paid by them to the preservation of discipline 
and good order. The only abuse I have heard, or read of, 
laid to their charge, is the wasting of the College Woods, 
and no proofs in a pretty exact examination of its books 
and papers have occurred to me to justify that accusation." 

By the date at which Dr. Martin's note was written 
the College had been fully reconstituted. Michael 
Freer, one of the ejected Fellows, had been the first 
to obtain restitution. 

" Whereas Michaele Freer, Master in arts and Fellow of 

Queens' Colledge in Cambridge hath been wrongfully 

ejected from his fellowshipp for refusing to take ye ingage- 

ment, these are to require you forthwith to restore to his 

sayd fellowshipp and seniority therein, and that from 

henceforth hee enjoy all rights and priviledges and profitts 

thereunto belonging. And for so doing this shall be your 

warrant. Given under my hand this 27th day of June 

1660, in y e twelfth yeare of ye reigne of our soveraine Lord 

y e King. 

E. Manchester. 

"To ye master and fellowes of Queenes College in 

Michael Freer had been ejected in 1644 for non- 
residence and not appearing on summons (p. 172), 
not in 1650 for refusing to take the Engagement. 
However he was not likely to quarrel with the form 
of restitution used, as it brought him back five weeks 
earlier than any of his brethren. He resumed residence 
and entered upon College work at once ; as early as 
July 3rd two pupils were entered under him. Arthur 
Walpole was restored August 2nd, Edward Kemp 


August 3rd (Searle, p. 573). And now that Dr. 
Martin had returned, he set to work to reconstitute 
the society on the principles laid down for him by 
the Chancellor's letter. 

" Reverend S r . 

" By virtue of an order from y° Kings Maj tie directed 
to me for y" confirmation of fellowes and schollars in theyr 
respective preferments and allso of authority given me by 
y° Lords assembled in Parliament to restore persons here- 
tofore ejected, These are to require you to take care not 
to remove any from being fellows or schollers in Queens' 
College that are in places vacant by death or other in- 
capacities, and likewise yt none be removed from being 
fellowes or schollers till those places be filled which are 
allready void or may immediately (be) made void by 
voluntary resignations, and if such vacant places shall not 
be enough for the reception of all who are to be restored, 
then to make roome for y e rest by y e removall only of so 
many of y e juniors as shall be necessary. Thus with my 
kind respects to you I rest. 

" Your friend to serve you, 

"E. Manchester." 
" From Warwick House, 
the 13 th of August, 

This was a moderate and reasonable proposal for the 
reconciliation, so far as possible, of the interests of the 
ejected Fellows with those of the present occupants. 
Three of the deprived Fellows — Freer, Walpole, and 
Kemp — had been already restored by the Chancellor. 
Three more — Richard Bryan, Samuel Rogers, and Am- 
brose Appleby — who had also been ejected, appear to 


have reclaimed their Fellowships, and had their claims 
admitted. Thus the Society, as legally constituted, con- 
sisted of the President and these six Fellows. Thomas 
Edwards and John Davenant had been elected to Fellow- 
ships the very day before Dr. Martin's arrest in 1642, 
but had never been admitted. Their claim came next. 
John Davenant now declined the Fellowship ; Thomas 
Edwards was admitted August 20. Of the remaining 
Fellows, James Speering and Daniel Nicols had been 
elected in the Mastership of Mr. Palmer ; Andrew 
Pascall, John Wilson, Zachary Cradock, James Code, 
Thomas Belk, Richard Wind, Joseph Kelsey, Robert 
Sayer, Phineas Fowke and John Newberry (super- 
numerary) had been chosen in the time of Dr. Horton. 
All these were now re-elected and re-admitted, taking the 
oath of allegiance and supremacy, and the oath pre- 
scribed by the Statutes, in place of the Covenant and 
the Engagement which they had previously taken and 
made. This was due to Dr. Martin's wish that these men 
should have as good a legal title as the older ejected 
Fellows. He did not consider that Lord Manchester's 
permission constituted a full legal title, and therefore 
called together the old Fellows, who had been ejected 
and now restored, " who chose every man of them regu- 
larly according to the Statutes." Even the ejected Fellows 
were all re-sworn on re-entering into their Fellowships. 
When these formalities had been duly performed, and 
the College was thus legally reformed, Dr. Martin wrote : 
" Divina igitur Ope, Misericordia et Providentia, Col- 
legium hoc.e captivitate quadem Babylonica ereptum, 
integris et legitime suis membris constituitur. Aug. 
95, 1660? 


Dr. Martin was restored at least to the living of Con- 
ington, was appointed one of the managers of the Savoy 
Conference, and was elected Proctor for the Diocese of 
Ely for the Convocation of 1661 (Searle, p. 516). When 
Dr. Henry Feme was promoted to the See of Chester, 
Dr. Martin was preferred to the Deanery of Ely. He 
was instituted March 21st, 1662, and being ill at the 
time, was installed by proxy April 25, but died only three 
days later, and was buried in the College Chapel. 
Thus there is a strange similarity between the destinies 
of the Royalist President and his predecessor of a 
century earlier, the accomplished Dr. William Mey. 
Both suffered deprivation, both lived to be restored, 
both survived their restoration just long enough 
to have their merits recognised by promotion, and 
then passed away from the scene of their chequered 

Dr. Martin at any rate lived long enough to accomplish 
one piece of work which lay very near his heart, viz., the 
restoration of the Chapel after the fanatic iconoclasm of 
William Dowsing. The cedar for wainscoting the east 
end was given by the President's tried friend, Henry 
Coke, in 1661. President Palmer's legacy of £53 was 
devoted to the Chapel. Dr. Bryan Smith gave £5 per 
annum for the use of the Chapel, and an organ was re- 

The draft of a petition to Parliament in Dr. Mai*tin's 
own handwriting is worth quoting, because it gives strong 
and characteristic expression to the old Royalist's feel- 
ings on the subject of the sufferings of the College and 


" Most humby sheweth, 

" That whereas their whole Corporation of Master 
and Fellowes were every man ejected and banished thence 
for refusing to take the Scotch League and Covenant, and 
their places fill'd with such strangers as had never beene 
students in that College, nor ever understood the state of 
any other ; and were all of them moreover discharg'd from 
all oathes, and locall statutes of the College ; and swome 
every man to the Scotch League and Covenant, and to 
regulate all things agreeably to the same ; all which Vasta- 
tion and Calamity (the like whereof no other College in 
England by God's great mercy and goodness ever suffer'd) 
appears to this day in the Register book under the hand of 
the Authority of that temporary new foundation ; together 
with an acknowledgment of our wrongfull ejectments ; by 
which meanes the whole College stock is entirely consum'd 
and lost : the woods and timber upon the grounds fell'd 
and sold without any account : the Covenants of Leases 
alter 'd ; rents extinguished ; Royaltyes alienated (which 
should have belong'd to the maintenance of the Chappell, 
and God's service and work amongst us) the very situation 
in a great part let out to lease ; and the College itselfe so 
ruinated in edifices and otherwise, that we are in no wayes 
able to maintaine it, together with the Composition of the 
Founders and Allowances of Fellowes and Schollars. 

May it therefore please the Right Honorable High 
Court in compassion of our singular and miserable Case 
and Condition, that these Amendments may be added 
to the Act for confirming of College Leases, that no 
Lease made by those strangers in this College since the 
yeere 1644, containing a longer or greater terme or 
other or less beneficiall covenants or conditions for the 
Coll. than were used in leases for the same lands or 


tenements before the yeere 1644, And that no lease 
of any such houses or lands or Royaltyes, which before 
the said yeere 1644 had never been let by the said 
Coll. or if let, yet had beene renewed again at their 
owne cost, be confirm'd, but declar'd utterly void. 

" And y r Humble Pet" shall ever pray, &c." 

" This petition was drawn up by Dr. Martin after his 
return, but never presented to the Parliament, 11 no doubt 
because the Bill of 1660 contained a clause similar to 
that desired (see Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 489). 

Dr. Martin enriched the Library by a present of 
thirty volumes, oddly enough the same number as had 
been given by Herbert Palmer. A list of them is given 
in the manuscript account of donations to the Library, 
in the hand of Richard Bryan, who has preserved much 
of the information about Dr. Martin's sufferings in exile, 
with the following heading : — 

" Muswum D™ Edvardi Martin, huius collegii prwsidentis 
doctissimi juxta et prudentissimi, in nuperis Ecclesice tempesta- 
tibus turn in vinclis, turn liberi, domi peregreque Confessoris 
invictissimi, et per aliquot (proh dolor) dies Eliensis Decani, 
Bibliothecam hanc nostram his libris adauxit." 

A number of other books were added to the Library 
" to balance all his accounts for the Library, " to which 
it appears Dr. Martin owed £&2 10s. 9d. (Searle, pp. 
577-588.) A finely-illuminated manuscript of the 
" Soliloquies of St. Augustine " in the Library was 
formerly in the possession of Dr. Martin. 

It might have been thought that Dr. Martin's long 
sufferings would move even his opponents to compas- 
sion. But this was not the case. He was doubtless 


stern and unyielding in the assertion of his principles, 
and this feature of his character perhaps provoked an 
animosity which a more conciliatory temper might have 
disarmed. However, since in Mr. Searle's words (p. 
580) " Neal (in his " History of the Puritans ") is most 
ingenious in his attempt to vilify the character of Dr. 
Martin," it is only fair to quote Lloyd's estimate of him 
(Mem. 461-63, quoted by Searle, p. 581), which is careful 
and just : 

" his parts, as his nature, inclining to Solidity, rather than 
Politeness, he was for the exact Sciences, Logick and 
Mathematicks, in his Study, as he was for strict Rules in his 
Conversation. His exact obedience to publick establish- 
ments in his own person raised him to a power and trust to 
see them obeyed by others, being incomparably well skilled 
in the Canon, Civil and Common Law, especially as far as 
concerned the Church in general, and in the Statutes of the 
University of Cambridge in particular." 

Lloyd sums up his account with an inscription : 

Edvardus Martin, S. Th. Dr. Cato sequioris 
seculi, qui nihil adfamam, 
omnia, ad conscientiam fecit. 
Rigide plus vir, et severe 
Justus ; sibi theatrwm, omnia 
ad normam exigens, non 
amplius ambivit quam ut 
sibi placeret et Deo. 

Edward Martin may be described in two words as 
semper idem. 

"It is but justice to his memory to observe," writes Dr. 
Plumptre, "that whatever difference of opinion there may 


be respecting the propriety and rectitude of his principles, 
yet all must agree that he gave the most unequivocal and 
indisputable proofs of his sincerity in them. The College 
books furnish sufficient proofs of his abilities, of his know- 
ledge and taste in classical learning, of his attention to the 
duties of his office, and of his faithful discharge of them." 

Poor Edward Martin, he was buried "without any 
monument or memorial," yet surely such a life as his 
needs no tombstone panegyric, for his every deed pro- 
claimed him to have been " faithful unto death." 



" The King can do no wrong." 

Presidents: Anthony Sparrow, 1662-1667; William Wells, 1667- 
1675 ; Henry James, 1675-1717. 

The subject of royal mandates for the election of 
Heads, Fellows and Scholars has been mentioned inci- 
dentally in the earlier history of the College. The 
Queens, who were the Foundresses and Patronesses of 
the College, perhaps not unreasonably thought them- 
selves entitled to issue letters of recommendation, which 
were tantamount to a command for the election of the 
person recommended. The same privilege had been 
exercised by Anne, Queen of Richard III., and, as she 
was Patroness of the College, in her case also something 
might be said in extenuation of the practice, provided it 
were confined within due bounds. Elizabeth of York, 
Queen of Henry VII., however, did not formally take 
the position of Patroness, but still seems to have thought 
that as Queen she had some right of nomination in ' the 
Queens 1 College'' ; and if we may judge from the request 
preferred by the College through Sir Thomas Smith for 
the Queen's protection in the reign of Henry VIII. 
(p. 90), the President and Fellows were not adverse to 


allowing the Queen, if not the King, some rights of 
patronage and consequent privilege. However, the 
whole question of royal interference reached a climax in 
the reign of Elizabeth. We find the Heads petitioning 
the Chancellor, the great Burghley, against the gross 
evils of a system of royal nomination, which set aside 
the claims of merit in favour of persons whose only 
qualification was the possession of influence at Court. 
Even so consistent an exponent of the doctrine of 
passive obedience as Andrew Perne is found refusing to 
elect to a Fellowship a person so put forward for election. 
The protest of the University checked the system for 
the time, but it revived again. Herbert Palmer owed 
his Fellowship to a mandate from King James, and 
Protector Cromwell had issued letters for the election of 
John Lawson. If Cromwell thought himself entitled to 
act in this way, it is hardly a matter of wonder that 
the House of Stuart after the Restoration resumed the 
custom of an earlier date. And as a matter of fact the 
three Presidents whose names stand at the head of this 
chapter were all elected by royal mandate. 

On the death of Dr. Martin there were two competitors 
for the Presidentship, whose claims were nearly as well 
balanced and whose careers were almost as distinguished " 
as those of John Davenant and George Mountaigne had 
been fifty years earlier. Anthony Sparrow, b. 1612, 
had been elected Fellow in 1633, had been at different 
times Dean, Bursar, Hebrew and Greek Prselector and 
was deprived in 1644 ; Simon Patrick, b. 1626, became 
Fellow in 1648, and Vicar of Battersea in 1658. His 
Fellowship was vacated Jan. 18, 1658. Thus, Sparrow 
was considerably the senior of the two, and now that 


the Headship was vacant the seniors supported Sparrow 
and the juniors Patrick for the office. The day 
appointed for the election was May 5th, 1662. The 
Fellows assembled in the Chapel, the Statute was read 
and the Veni Creator Spiritus recited. Then (three 
scrutinies being allowed by the Statute) the election 
was proceeded with, Richard Bryan, B.D., Vice-President, 
standing in scrutiny. The five senior Fellows voted for 
Dr. Sparrow, " an antient member of our society and 
known to be, a constant loyall subject to the King and 
true to the Church." Some others then voted for Mr. 
Patrick, but before five of them had written their votes 
the Senior Fellow broke off that scrutiny, produced the 
King's letters commendatory for Dr. Sparrow and read 
them in the presence and hearing of the whole Society. 
A statement, drawn up by Dr. Sparrow's supporters, 
found among the MSS. of Archbishop Sancroft, who 
was then Master of Emmanuel, continues the narrative 
in these words. 

" After these (letters) were read, we went to a second 
scrutiny, and the seniors writt as before for Dr. Sparrow, 
some others for Mr. Patrick : but before they had written 
so many suffrages for Mr. Patrick, as had been given for 
Dr. Sparrow, the senior Fellow broke off that scrutiny and 
read His Majesties Mandate for the electing Dr. Sparrow. 
After that, the seniors againe according to their Duty 
writt their suffrages for Dr. Sparrow, and the Senior 
Fellow, seeing that others were disobedient to his Majes- 
ties command, broke off that scrutiny, Dr. Sparrow having 
then two suffrages more than Mr. Patrick. After this the 
senior Fellow pronounced Dr. Sparrow Master or President 
virtute Regii Mandati. The truth of this we do attest by 


the subscription of our hands, ready to confirm it by oath, 
when required. Ambrose Appleby, Edward Kemp, Richard 
Bryan, Sen. Fellows." » 

" The Mandate being published to the society before the 
election was made, Dr. Anthony Sparrow claymes the 
right of the Presidentship or Mastership of Queens' 
Colledge by virtue of that Mandate. For the Statute of 
the Colledge for election, being made by the King's sole 
power and never confirmed by Act of Parliament, may, 
when he pleaseth, be abrogated, and by the same reason 
be suspended for a time, and- de facto hath usually upon 
emergent occasions been suspended or abrogated. And 
being so, the society hath no power to contradict his 
Majesties Authority. And therefore the Mandate being 
for the election of Dr. Sparrow, the society had no power 
to chuse any other for that time ; and if they did, that 
election was void. The seniors and some others did in 
obedience to the King's command elect and admitt the 
said Anthony Sparrow." 

With the facts as here stated Dr. Patrick's own 
account (Autobiography 41-45 quoted Cooper, " Ann.," 
iii. 479-499) sufficiently agrees. The Bishop narrates 
how he heard the news of the vacancy and that the 
major part of the Fellows wished him to be elected ; he 
had prayed that God would direct the issue as should 
be most beneficial to the place of his education. He 
was desired to come to the College, 

" and on the fifth of May word was brought me to Trompe- 
ton (Trumpington) within a mile of Cambridge, that I was 
legally chosen by the majority of the fellows, but another 
admitted, contrary to the statutes. For thus the election 
was managed. The senior fellow Went up to the Com- 


munion table, and read the statute, and invoked the Holy 
Ghost to direct their choice, and they were sworn to choose 
him whom they knew most worthy. Then he read a letter 
from the King recommending Dr. Sparrow to their choice, 
and standing in scrutiny, the fellows came up one by one, 
and in a paper wrote their suffrages (which I have still to 
shew) ; and when he saw that eleven of nineteen had 
wrote for me, he snatched up the paper, and read a 
mandamus from the King to choose Dr. Sparrow. They 
told him he should have produced it sooner, for now it was 
too late, another being chose by the major part of the 
fellows, before they knew the King's mind. But the old 
man, one Mr. Brian, pronounced Dr. Sparrow to be chosen 
by the King's authority and admitted him. I came to the 
college when this was done, and staying one night with 
my friends returned to London, to advise what was to be 
done in this case." 

The supporters of Mr. Patrick were naturally not 
satisfied. Whatever the rights of the Crown in the 
matter might be, no one will doubt the justice of the 
criticism, that, if the election was to be by mandate, 
Mr. Bryan " ought to have produced it sooner.'" As 
Dr. Sparrow's position was called in question, the King 
sent down a commission to the Vice-Chancellor, the two 
Divinity Professors and the Provost of King's to con- 
vene the new Master and the Fellows on a fixed day 
(May 12) in the College Hall, and there first to confirm 
the election and admission of Dr. Sparrow, and then to 
suspend the Fellows who had voted for Mr. Patrick, 
from all their rights and privileges, excepting their 
chambers and the liberty of attending Chapel, till the 
Vice-Chancellor and his assistants and the Master of the 


College should certify their hopes of their better be- 

In Cambridge there was no further opposition to 
Dr. Sparrow, and he remained in undisturbed possession 
of the Mastership. But Mr. Patrick acting on the 
advice of his friends was moving in London. He 
applied for a mandamus for admission as President in 
the King's Bench on May 9, which was not granted by 
the Judges. The application was renewed May 12 — 
the day of the commission in Cambridge — and this time 
the application was successful. However, as no return 
was made to the writ of mandamus, further proceedings 
were necessary. Bishop Patrick shall tell his own 

." On the 22nd of October I was summoned to appear 
before some commissioners, whom the King appointed to 
hear our business. I was advised by some hot persons not 
to go. But both I and the fellows who chose me appeared 
on the SOth at Worcester house, before the Lord Chancellor, 
the Bishops of London, Winchester, Ely and others, whose 
names I have forgot, where I was thought to speak very 
pertinently in my own behalf. And the Lord Chancellor, 
after some sharp words, bade us bring what friends we 
pleased with us the next time they met to examine the 
business, and they should see whether they did not do us 
justice. But on the 3rd of November, when we appeared 
again, they were all shut out : and I having then thought 
fit to entertain counsel, when I came to call Serjeant 
Keeling to go along with me, he told me he was ordered 
at that hour to wait upon the King at the council table. 
So I was forced to desire leave I might plead my own 
cause as well as I could ; which was granted, and some of 


the fellows had permission to speak, who made it so evi- 
dently appear that I was duly chosen, that the counsel on 
the other side had nothing to reply, but that they were 
fellows only by the King's grace and favour, who sent a 
mandamus that all should keep their fellowships at the 
restoration who were not in sequestered places. To which 
Dr. Cradock answered, that it was true his Majesty had 
sent such a mandamus, but Dr. Martin the Master said this 
was not sufficient to give them so good a title as he desired 
they should have ; and therefore called all the old fellows 
together, who had been rejected and now restored, who 
chose every man of them regularly, according to the 
statutes, an,d admitted them fellows. At which the 
Chancellor said, ' Well then, he is legally chosen ; but will 
he yield nothing to the King ? ' I humbly told him I had 
nothing to yield, but if they pleased to put me in posses- 
sion of that to which they acknowledged I had a right, 
they should see what I would do. Upon which he was 
angry, and bade all our names to be taken and set down in 
writing, that we might be noted as a company of factious 
fellows ; and then bid us withdraw ; and we heard no more 
of this commission, by which we were heard and nothing 
determined. I have not set down here a great many 
strange things that were said at this hearing, because I 
reverence the memory of that great man (the Lord Chan- 
cellor, the great Lord Clarendon) who hath deserved highly 
of this nation. His intention was only to discourage me 
from proceeding in my action in Westminster Hall, which 
I plainly signified I would pursue; though I did not 
decline their judgment. 

" On the 10th (of November) I was told that my counsel 
was taken off; and when I went to him to know the truth, 
he freely confessed he had received instructions to meddle 
no more in my business, which was moved again by another 


person on the 27th of November in Westminster hall. 
But after a long attendance there, for two years or more, I 
found it was to no purpose ; for after three arguments by 
Sir William Jones, Sir Thomas Raymond and another, the 
judges were divided; two being of opinion the manda- 
mus did lie, and I ought to be admitted, the other two 
were against it ; so that it was to be an exchequer case 
before the judges, who it is likely- would have been equally 
divided. Therefore I let it fall, being settled in a better 
place, wherein I hope I did more good than I should have 
done there." 

The "better place" to which the Bishop refers is 
the living of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, to which he 
was appointed in 1662. He won the affection of his 
people by his devoted ministrations to them during the 
plague. Afterwards Simon Patrick was successively 
Prebendary of Westminster, Dean of Peterborough, and 
Bishop, first of Chichester (1689) and then of Ely 
(1691). He lived until 1707, and fully deserved his 
high reputation for learning and piety. The Church of 
England had few abler champions even at the time of 
" clerus Anglicanus stupor mundi."" Among his works 
were "Christian Sacrifice," "The Devout Christian," 
"Jesus and the Resurrection Justified," with Com- 
mentaries, &c, in all 10 volumes. 

The contention of Dr. Sparrow's supporters was, that 
the King's mandate having been given, and Sparrow 
elected and confirmed by the King's commissioners, 

"no other Court ought to intermeddle with the debate, 
since the King is jure communi visitor of the said Colledge, 
being Heire to the Foundresse Queen Elizabeth, wife to 
King Edward the 4th. And the Common Lawe saith, that 


where the King is Founder, or Heire to the Founder or 
Foundresse, he is visitor of that Foundation, and as visitor 
judge of Differences about the Statutes of the Colledge." 

It is easy to understand that Dr. Sparrow was recom- 
mended to the King by his sufferings in the Royalist 
cause, and it may well be supposed that, knowing 
nothing of the wish of the junior Fellows to have 
Mr. Patrick, his Majesty supposed that Dr. Sparrow 
would be as acceptable to the Society as he was in- 
dubitably well qualified for the Presidentship. On his 
deprivation by Lord Manchester in 1644, Anthony 
Sparrow, then thirty-two, was reduced to great straits. 
Four years later he was instituted by Bishop Hall into 
the living of Hawkden in Suffolk. But he was driven 
out by the Long Parliament, and, says Dr. Plumptre, 

" during the remainder of the usurpation he skulk' d from 
one place to another. After the Restoration he resumed 
possession of his living, but was soon afterwards called up 
to London to consult with other divines upon the altera- 
tions to be made in the Service-Book. He was likewise 
prevailed with by the earnest request and importunity of 
his friends to become one of the Ministers and Preachers 
at Bury St. Edmund's." 

At the time of his appointment to the Presidentship 
Dr. Sparrow was Archdeacon of Sudbury and Chaplain 
to the Kingi On January 27th, 1663, he signed a decree 
of the Vice-Chancellor and Heads for " the more solemn 
observance of the 30th day of January," the date of the 
execution of King Charles I. It is ordered that the 
Heads being Doctors in Divinity shall in turn according 
to seniority preach upon that day at 9 a.m., and that 


there shall be a speech at 2 p.m. (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 
510). In 1663 Dr. Sparrow was also made a Prebendary 
of Ely by Bishop Wren. In 1664 he signed a decree, 
as one of the Heads, ordering " that all in statu pupiUari 
that shall go to coffee-houses without their tutor's leave 
shall be punished according to the statute for haunters 
of taverns and alehouses " (Cooper, " Ann., 1 ' iii. 515). 
Evidently the coffee-house of the present day differs not 
a little from its seventeenth-century prototype. And 
after this it became very common for the gravest 
graduates to go to the coffee-house to read the journals 
and newsletters, when the coach had come in. A coach 
first plied between Cambridge and London in 1653 : in 
1654 a coach called " The Fly " left the " Swan " in 
Holborn every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and 
the "Rose" in Cambridge every Tuesday, Thursday 
and Saturday, the fare being 10*., and twelve hours, 
"not counting the time for dining" being spent on 
the journey (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 454 and 463). Dr. 
Sparrow was Vice-Chancellor 1664-1665 and received 
in that capacity an invitation which he did not accept. 
On March 23, the Mayor, the Recorder and the Alder- 
men " went on fishing according to custome." They 
had three boats with nets, they drew Newnham Pit, 
Cambridge Mill Pit, and so fished down to Bullen 
Grove, at the east end of Stourbridge Common. There, 
continues Alderman Newton, 

" we had our fish dressed, ye charge of this for wine bread 
and cheese in ye boate and after at Bullen together with 
boatehire came to £5 od money. Ye Mace did not goe 
with ye Mayor, none were in Gownes. The Mayor and 
Aldermen invited with them ye Vice Chancellor then Dr. 


Sparrowe but he went not, also Dr. Fleetwood, Dr. Dill- 
ingham and Dr. Stoyt (Provost of King's, Master of Clare, 
and Edward Stoyte, M.D.), who went and dyned with them 
at Bullen." 

The plague was so bad in Cambridge in the latter 
part of the year that the sermons at St. Mary's and the 
exercises in the Schools were discontinued. At this 
crisis Mr. Tennison, afterwards Archbishop, then Vicar 
of Great St. Andrew's, was actually left alone in Corpus 
with two scholars and a few servants. In March 1666 
the place was pronounced to be free from infection and 
the students were summoned back into residence ; but 
the plague broke out again with great violence in the 
summer, Stourbridge Fair was put off and all public 
meetings in the University and town were suspended, 
and as late as February 1667 the King by letter 
reserved the seniority of all persons- who by reason of 
contagion were unable to come to Cambridge on Ash 
Wednesday to be created Bachelors (Cooper " Ann.," iii. 
517, 520, 522). In this year, 1667, Dr. Sparrow on being 
appointed Bishop of Exeter resigned the Headship of 
Queens'. Bishop Sparrow was translated to Norwich in 
1676, and died there in 1685. 

" After he was Bishop he published a Collection of 
Articles, Canons, &c, of the Church of England, with a 
Preface, and a Rationale of the Common Prayer. He 
married Susanna Coel, daughter of Thomas Coel, Esq., of 
Depden (his native" place), by whom he had six daughters. 
He was a man of a very ready apprehension and good 
judgment, hut complained of the weakness of his memory. 
He was very strict in his devotions, public and private. 
Besides those in his retirements, he never failed to have 



the Litany read in his family every evening about six or 
seven o'clock " (Dr. Plumptre, from Gearing's MS. History 
of the Bishops of Norwich). 

Bishop Sparrow's " Rationale " is an important and 
valuable work. The quotation given above from Dr. 
Plumptre conveys the impression that the work was 
first published after Dr. Sparrow's elevation to the 
episcopal bench. The date of the book seems to be 
1655, but no copy of that edition is known to be extant. 
A copy of the edition of 1657, the earliest known to be 
in existence, is appropriately in the Library of Queens' 

Some items from the accounts of this period are of 
sufficient interest to be quoted. In 1664 the Fellows' 
Garden was taken in hand, for £6 0s. %d. was paid 
"for heightening ye walls," 19*. for "jasmins, gilli- 
flowers and strawberies," £1 14?. "for Peach and 
Apricote-trees," 6s. 6d. "for 5 apple-trees and setting;" 
there were 12 elms set in the grove, and items for seeds, 
more apple-trees, for walks and hedging about the 
walks, which show that the Garden had been somewhat 
neglected during the preceding years. There are more 
purchases of fruit-trees, &c, in the following years. The 
lime-house at the Orchard-gate was built at a cost of 
£12 6s. 8d., the carpenter's bill for, the same amount- 
ing to £12 8s. 6d. " Curtains for the lodging " cost 
16*., " 12 Russia-leather chairs in ye lodgings " £5 Is. 
For paving the Hall with stone at 7d. per foot 
£$6 15*. 6d. is paid. A sum of 9*. M. is given to 
" S re Paolo Sejalitti ye converted Jew," and there is the 
naive entry " for 2 or 3 odd things 3*. 2d." (" Magn. 


Journ.," vi. 120-121). In June 1665 £9, 10s. was paid 
to the organ-mender, and "6d. for a booke for ye Butler 
to enter ye beere;" v in September £3 5s. for painting 
the Bridge, £2, 8s. for " sixe turky chaires for ye 
lodging," and £% 15*. for table-linen (" Magn. Journ.,'" 
vi. 124). In December 1665 is a payment of 2*. " for 
dressing ye bore, 11 i.e., presumably the boar's head for 
Christmas Day; in June 1666 i?l to the upholsterer for 
chairs and mats in the Lodge, in August 2*. "for 
powder on ye thanksgiving day," in September £2 10*. 
to the upholsterer for work in the Lodge and £1 14?. 8d. 
to the svhcoquus for scouring the pewter ("Magn. 
Journ./' vi. 127-129). In June 1667 £31 is paid for 
building the Orchard Wall (" Magn. Journ.," vi. 132). 

On the promotion of Bishop Sparrow a President was 
again elected by royal mandate, on this occasion without 
the previous ceremony of a commendatory letter. The 
author of the " Memoirs of Bishop Sparrow " says that 
the King gave him the nomination of his successor in the 
Presidentship and that he nominated William Wells. 
There seems to be no evidence to support this statement, 
but even without any suggestion from the outgoing 
President, William Wells was a person very likely to be 
selected by the King, as having proved his loyalty by 
something more than words. He had been elected 
Fellow of Queens' in 1638, and had been ejected by Lord 
Manchester for refusing to take the Covenant in 1644. 
At this time he was Rector of Sandon in Essex (a living 
which came into the gift of the College in 1736), and 
Archdeacon of Colchester. He was a married man and 
left two daughters. There was no opposition to his 
election, although the Fellows, or some of them, were, it 


is said, again anxious to elect Dr. Patrick. Dr. Wells 
was elected Sept. 36th, 1667. There was apparently a 
feeling in the University that the Crown was inclined to 
interfere overmuch by means of these royal mandates 
for offices and degrees, and the existence of the feeling 
must have become known to the King. For in 1668 
Charles II. addressed a letter to the Chancellor, Vice- 
Chancellor and Caput, declaring his Royal Pleasure that 
all persons who shall come with letters mandatory for 
degrees shall personally subscribe the usual forms and 
pay the usual fees (Cooper " Ann.," iii. 530), a letter 
clearly meant to remove as far as possible an angry 
feeling on the part of the University. Dr. Wells, as one 
of the Heads of Houses, had the honour of assisting in 
the reception of Cosmo de Medicis, Prince of Tuscany, 
in 1669, the Duke and Duchess of York and the Prince 
of Orange, afterwards King William III., in 1670. The 
illustrious champion of Protestantism and freedom is 
described by one who saw him on this occasion as being 
" between 19 and 20 years of age, a well countenanced 
man, a smooth and meeger face, and a handsome head 
of hayre of his owne " (Cooper, " Ann., 11 iii. 545). In 
1671, the King paid his long-promised visit to Cambridge 
and was magnificently entertained by the University at 
a cost of more than a thousand pounds. It is significant 
that, " through his Majesties great favour, and his Grace 
the Chancellor's (the Duke of Buckingham) care of the 
University, no degrees were conferred upon any, by his 
Majesties command, though much desired by many 11 
(London Gazette, Oct. 5, 1671). A list of the members 
of the University published in 1672 gives the total 
number as 2522. Queens 1 College is set down as 


consisting of "a President, 19 Fellows, 27 Scholars, 
12 Bible Clerks, and three Lecturers of Hebrew, 
Arithmetic and Geometry (i.e., John Joscelyn's Hebrew 
Lecturer and Sir Thomas Smith's Arithmetic and 
Geometry Lecturers), besides other officers and servants 
of the Foundation and Students. The whole number 
being about 120." This is almost the same number as 
on the eve of the Civil War, 1641, but there is a terrible 
declension from the palmy days of Bishop Davenant, 
when the College numbered two hundred and thirty 
(p. 106). Nevertheless the College could show at this 
time a long list of distinguished members, who had made 
their mark, most of them in the Church, but some in 
other departments. Such were Robert Stapleton, 
(d. 1669), who was knighted by Charles I. for his 
gallantry at Edge Hill, translated Juvenal and Musaeus, 
and was a dramatic author of eminence ; Thomas Mocket 
(d. 1670), a writer on practical divinity; Joseph 
Truman (d. 1671), author of the " Discourse of Natural 
and Moral Impotency." Dr. John Sherman (d. 1671), 
Archdeacon of Salisbury, author of " Historia Collegii 
Jesu Cantabrigise " ; William Shef win, a writer of 
millenarian views ; Oliver Bowles, Fellow (d. 1674), an 
exemplary divine who wrote "Tractatus de Pastore 
Evangelico " ; Sir Orlando Bridgman (d. 1674), Lord 
Keeper of the Great Seal ; William Whitaker, Fellow, 
a famous preacher of exemplary life; Sir John King 
(d. 1677), Solicitor-General to the Duke of York ; Dr. 
Robert Mapletoft (d. 1677), Fellow, Master of Pembroke, 
and Dean of Ely; Charles Smith (d. 1678), Fellow, 
Archdeacon of Colchester; Sir Moundeford Bramston 
(d. 1679), Master in Chancery ; Dr. Edward Davenant 


(d. 1679), Fellow, Archdeacon of Berks, &c. ; Nathanael 
Ingelo (d. 1683), Fellow, author and musician ; Francis 
Bramston (d. 1683), Fellow, Baron of the Exchequer ; 
Roger Coke, who wrote the " Detection of the Court and 
State of England"; Sir Charles Cotterell (d. 1687), 
French and Spanish Scholar ; Heneage Finch (d. 1689), 
Earl of Winchelsea, Ambassador to Turkey ; Dr. Walter 
Needham (d. 1691), Fellow, a famous anatomist; Dr. 
Richard Meggot (d. 1692), Dean of Winchester; 
Benjamin Rogers, the musical composer; Dr. Zachary 
Cradock (1695), Fellow, Preacher at Grays' Inn, Provost 
of Ebon, a learned and eloquent divine; Dr. John 
Patrick (d. 1695), Preacher at the Charterhouse, author 
of a " Century of Psalms," etc. ; John Fielding (d. 1697), 
Fellow, Archdeacon of Dorset; Charles Hopkins 
(d. 1699), author of dramas, poems and translations; 
Edmund Bohun (d. 1699), Chief-Justice of South 
Carolina, a well-known political writer; Dr. Samuel 
Croborrow, Fellow, Archdeacon of Nottingham, a non- 
juror ; John Pomfret(d. 1703), who wrote the " Choice," 
a once popular poem ; Sir Thomas Jenner (d. 1707), 
Justice of the Common Pleas ; Joseph Kelsey (d. 1710), 
Fellow, Archdeacon of Wilts. 

In 1673 Dr. Wells had a curious experience. The 
Official of the Archdeaconry of Ely suspended Dr. 
Spencer, Master of Corpus and Vice-Chancellor at the 
time, and Dr. Wells, President of Queens', "for not 
appearing at the Archdeacon's Visitation, they being 
incumbents of benefices iu the archdeaconry " (Cooper, 
" Ann./' iii. 556). The official must have been a busy- 
body and made a very bad mistake on this occasion. 
His action was complained of as being not only a breach 


of the privileges of the University, but also of the 
rights of Convocation, which was then sitting, and of 
which Dr. Spencer and Dr. Wells were ex-offlcw 
members as Archdeacons respectively of Sudbury and 

In 1674 the Duke of Buckingham was removed from 
the Chancellorship and the Duke of Monmouth recom- 
mended for election by the King. At his installation 
at Worcester House on Sept. 3 Dr. Wells no doubt 
took part in the splendid ceremonies of the occasion. 
Dr. Wells was Vice-Chancellor the following year and 
presumably to him were addressed the Duke of Mon- 
mouth's inquiries on the state of the University and the 
way in which certain Statutes were observed (Cooper, 
" Ann.," iii. 567 ff.). The first inquiry " whether my 
last letter of the delivering of sermons by memory and 
the decent wearing of hair had its due effect or not ? " 
refers to a letter written by the Duke, October 8th, 1674, 
when the King had been scandalised by a preacher, who 
wore a " peruke of an unusual and unbecoming length," 
and read his sermon. " The Merrie Monarch " was at 
Newmarket when his feelings were thus harrowed, and 
the rebuke to the University on these practices which 
occasioned Majesty so much displeasure is dated from 
Newmarket. The reply of the Heads was, " That his 
grace's letter of delivering sermons by memory and the 
decent wearing of hair hath had very good effect with 
many, and that it may have its due and full effect with 
all, it shall be our care to our power in our several 
places." To the eighth question " whether that statute 
which forbids any persons to come to the taverns, unless 
to meet some friends out of the country, be duly observed 


or not ? " the answer is : " The statute for scholars (of 
whatsoever profession or degree) not going to taverns 
(saving in some cases in the same statute allowed) is too 
frequently transgressed, notwithstanding the endeavours 
of the vice-chancellor and other officers of the Uni- 
versity." And to the twelfth question " whether the 
coffee-houses be much frequented or not, by what sort 
and degree of men, and at what hour?" answer was 
made, " The coffee-houses are daily frequented and in 
great numbers of all sorts (the heads of houses and 
other doctors excepted ! !) at all hours, especially 
morning and evening." In the drafting of these replies, 
however, Dr. Wells can have taken no part, for he died 
about July 20th, 1675. 

And now for the third time in succession a royal 
mandate supplied the College with a President. A 
curious story is told in connexion with this appoint- 
ment. The Fellows, it is said, were still, as they had 
been at the two previous vacancies, desirous of electing 
Dr. Patrick to be President. To secure a free election 
Henry James, B.D., Fellow and Chaplain to the King, 
was sent by the Society to make interest with proper 
persons about the Court that no mandate might be 
sent. However this may be, a mandate was sent, 
Henry James was the person named in it and by virtue 
of the mandate he was admitted President, July 29th, 
1675. This, notes Dr. Plumptre, "was the last 
mandate that came to the College to this time (1784), 
and may it ever continue so." James II. sent two 
mandates for the election of Fellows in 1686 and 1687 
but this was the last occasion on which the choice of 
a President was suggested or dictated by the Crown. 


The new President was the son of Henry James, Rector 
of Kingston in Somersetshire, and also of Crocombe, to 
which last he was promoted by the Committee of 
Parliament during the Civil War. Henry James the 
younger was educated at Eton, entered Magdalene 
College in 1660, removed to Queens 1 1661, and was 
elected Fellow 1664. As he was seventy-five at the 
time of his death in 1717, he was less than thirty-four 
when he became President. His rule of more than 
forty-one years is the longest in the history of the 
College, unless indeed Andrew Dokett's tenure of the 
Headship be reckoned from 1442, though it is more 
reasonable to count it from the date of the actual 
foundation of Queens 1 College in 1448. After his 
election as President, Henry James took the degree of 
D.D., was further promoted to Prebends at York and 
at Canterbury, and became in 1700 Regius Professor of 
Divinity. He was three times Vice-Chancellor, in' 1683, 
1696 and 1697. In the year after his appointment, his 
name appears last as the junior Head among the 
signatories of a decree forbidding scholars to resort to 
houses of ill-fame, one of which is the Saracen's Head 
"upon the causeway to Queens 1 College'" (Cooper, 
" Ann.," iii. 571). In 1681 his name is signed, now half- 
way up the list, to the decree 

" that none residing in the University (under the degree 
of master of arts) shall hereafter upon any pretence what- 
soever be allowed to appear publicly either in or out of 
colleges in mourning gowns, or gowns made after that 
fashion, or any other but what by custom and order of the 
University belongs to their degree and standing " (Cooper, 
"Ann.," iii. 588). 


In the same year the King and Queen visited 
Cambridge and were enthusiastically received. 

" The whole [entertainment] was so great and magnifi- 
cent, and withal so zealous and hearty, to the Nobility as 
well as their Majesties, that the Court was never better 
satisfy'd with any Entertain/nent, of which the news soon 
resounded through the whole Kingdom " (Echard, Hist., iii. 

The accounts of the Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Gower, 
Master of St. John's) contain expenses amounting to 
^500 in connexion with this royal visit. In 1683, when 
Dr. James was Vice-Chancellor, the University presented 
an extravagantly loyal address on the discovery of the 
Rye House Plot. "All the unnatural and devilish 
conspiracies of wicked and execrable men serve only to 
convince the world how much your Sacred Majesty is 
the Darling of Heaven and the peculiar care of 
Providence " (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 598). It appears that 
the Colleges still at this period paid the poor of 
Cambridge the sum of ,£126 8*. by quarterly payments. 
The payments are ranked in a scale descending from 
Trinity College, which contributed £21 6s. 8d., to 
Catharine Hall, which gave £1 12*. : Queens 1 College, 
which comes sixth on the list, is assessed at £1 9s. 4sd. 

Under James II., the Jesuits were very anxious to 
gain a footing in the Universities. They fancied that 
once admitted they would gain such a reputation by 
their methods of instruction, that they would attract 
the men away from the University tutors, " who were 
certainly too remiss. 1 ' Various plans were suggested, 
amongst others that the King should endow a new 


college for them in each of the Universities, "which 
need not have cost above two thousand pounds a year. 11 
The King was not prepared to do this, but he 
endeavoured to conciliate or coerce the Universities into 
admitting Papists. Joshua Basset was appointed 
Master of Sidney by a royal mandate which dispensed 
him from taking any oath. Basset was a Fellow of 
Caius and generally reputed a Papist. When the 
Fellows of Sidney refused to omit the Thanksgiving 
Service on November 5, "he shut the door of the 
College Chapel and hindered the service for that time. 11 
Then followed the attempt to procure by mandamus 
the M.A. degree for Alban Francis, "an ignorant 
Benedictine monk. 11 In this Basset, as a member of the 
Caput, was expected to help. But the Vice-Chancellor, 
Dr. Peachell, Master of Magdalene, had the full support 
of the University in declining to admit Francis, until 
the King had been petitioned to revoke his mandate. 
This revocation could not be procured : the influence of 
the Chancellor, the Duke of Albemarle, and of Lord 
Sunderland was exerted in vain, and the Vice-Chancellor 
and deputies of the Senate were summoned to appear in 
London before the Lords Commissioners. The Deputies 
appointed were Dr. John Peachell, the Vice-Chancellor, 
Dr. John Eachard, Master of Catharine Hall, Dr. 
Humphrey Babington, Fellow of Trinity, Dr. Thomas 
Smoult, Professor of Casuistry, Dr. William Cook, 
Fellow of Jesus, Mr. John Billers, Fellow of St. John's 
and Public Orator, Mr. Isaac Newton, Fellow of Trinity 
and Mathematical Professor, Mr. James Smith, Fellow 
of Queens 1 (elected 1679) and Mr. George Stanhope, 
Fellow of King's. These delegates appeared before the 


Commissioners who were presided over by Lord 
Chancellor Jefferys on April 21st, April 27th, and May 
7th and 12th, 1687. In the end the unfortunate Dr. 
Peachell was deprived of the Vice-Chancellorship and 
his Mastership " for an act of great disobedience to the 
King's commands," the others were dismissed with a 
warning to be more obedient in future, a warning 
delivered by Jefferys himself and ending with the words, 
"Therefore I shall say unto you what the Scripture 
says, and rather because most of you are divines ; Go 
your way, and sin no more, lest a worse thing come 
unto you " (Cooper, " Ann.," iii. 621-632). James Smith, 
who was honoured by being chosen to represent the 
University on this occasion, was preferred by the Earl 
of Dorset to the living of Welford in Gloucestershire, 
by which his fellowship was vacated in April 1690. 
He was afterwards Chaplain to Bishop Patrick, Pre- 
bendary of Ely and Rector first of Rettingdon in Essex, 
then of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire. Queens' College 
received two royal mandates from James II. for the 
election of Fellows. One was for Josiah Alsop, Chaplain 
to a Regiment of Foot, who was elected in 1686. He 
was presented by William III. to Rendelsham in Suffolk, 
August 1699, which vacated his fellowship. The other 
mandate was in 1687 for George Geary, " who was 
elected but never admitted." Probably the coming 
change appeared near enough to warrant the Society in 
a judicious postponement of the admission. And King 
James II. soon saw the error of his ways. In 1688 
Dr. Peachell was reinstated at Magdalene and "the 
Popish Master" withdrawn from Sidney. But it was 
too late, the King and the Lord Chancellor had soon 


other things to think of besides browbeating the Uni- 
versity. Just before the bloodless Revolution, on the 
death of the Duke of Albemarle, Archbishop Sancroft 
was elected Chancellor against his express wish. But 
the Archbishop persisted in refusing to accept the office, 
and, as having sworn loyalty to James II., he felt unable 
to take the oaths to William and Mary. So he lost the 
Archbishopric, and Charles Seymour, " the proud Duke 
of Somerset, 1 " was elected Chancellor in March 1689, 
and held the office for nearly sixty years. There is no 
evidence that any of the Fellows of Queens 1 refused the 
oaths to William and Mary, and the list of Fellows 
elected seems to be conclusive that no fellowships were 
vacated in this way. In 1689 only one Fellow was 
elected, in 1690 two, and there was no election in 1691. 
Archdeacon Croborow indeed was a non-juror, but his 
fellowship had been vacated by his preferment as far 
back as 1679. Still Dr. James must have been rendered 
uncomfortable by a story about copies of James II.'s 
Declaration found at Cambridge, which came before the 
Houses of Commons on June 20 : 

" One Thomas Fowler was called in and was at the Bar 
examined concerning the same ; and gave an account that 
they came down by Carriers in Boxes, directed to the 
Master of Queens' College and Master of St. John's College. 
But Sir Robert Sawyer, one of the Burgesses for the 
University (the great Newton was the other) acquainted 
the House, That he. had received Information, that both 
the Boxes were carried to and now remain with the Vice- 
Chancellor " (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 6). 

The King visited the University, October 7th, 1689, 
when " an extraordinary commencement being held on 


this signal occasion for conferring degrees on persons of 
work in all faculties" among those admitted was 
Monsieur Peter Allix, of Queens 1 College, afterwards 
Dean of Ely. Peter Allix had something of a gift for 
verse. He was one of the contributors to the Cambridge 
Verses written on the death of the little Duke of 
Gloucester in 1700, and again in 1702, to the Verses 
written on the death of William III. and the accession 
of Queen Anne, when Thomas Rymer, who was elected 
Fellow of Queens 1 in that year, also contributed. 

One of the most distinguished members of the College 
showed at this time by his generosity that he had not 
forgotten Cambridge. Simon Patrick, who was now 
Bishop] of Ely, about 1691, the date of his translation 
to Ely, established lectureships in the two churches of 
St. Botolph and St. Clement, " allowing to each of them 
thirty pounds a year, for an afternoon sermon every 
Sunday. 11 

While we are speaking of Bishop Patrick, it may be 
recorded that on September 1st, 1704, as Bishop of Ely, 
he consecrated the new Chapel of St. Catharine^. The 
Petition to the Bishop and the Act of Consecration will 
be found, Cooper, " Ann., 11 iv. 67. 

Dr. Plumptre writes in his MS. history : 

" The walk called Erasmus' Walk was, I believe, first 
made in the time of Dr. James, viz., in the year 1685. 
For in the Accounts of that year it is spoken of as made 
and as planted, not replanted ; and King's College was at 
the expense of planting the side next the ditch, Queens' of 
that next the Common (' Magn. Journ.,' vi. 218, Dec. 1685). 
The title was probably given it therefore in honour of that 
distinguished Member of the College, rather than on 


account of its being a favourite walk of his. If it was so, 
he enjoyed I doubt no other shade there than what arose 
from the adjoining Grove of King's College ; for I find no 
direct mention nor anything which may seem to imply the 
plantation or forming of any walk here till this time." 

As late as 1779 the University paid i?50 to save the 
trees in Erasmus' Walk from destruction by the town 
(Cooper, "Ann., 11 iv. 389). These trees are described as 
" the trees on Erasmus's Walk at the north end of 
Queens' Green," and ,are presumably outside the College 
property, otherwise it would have devolved on the 
College to save the trees. 

A subject that continually crops up at this period 
and ' occasioned heart-burnings and litigation is the 
question of "pontage lands," the proprietors of which 
were supposed to be liable for the repairs of the " Great 
Bridge." In 1694 Queens', together with Corpus, King's 
and St. Catherine's Colleges, and a number of private 
proprietors, had to undergo indictment at the assizes 
for not repairing the Great Bridge. The town was 
indicted in 1718 for non-repair of the Bridge and 
pleaded that it ought to be repaired by the owners of 
the pontage lands, while some of the proprietors who 
were indicted claimed that the Corporation were liable 
to maintain the Bridge, as they took a toll for passing 
over it. The pontage rates were so heavy that it is not 
to be wondered at if the proprietors rebelled against the 
burdens, e.g., in 1738 the Commissioners assessed the 
lands chargeable to the repair of the Great Bridge at 
£5 13*. 6d. per hide, in 1752 on a rate of £6 per hide 
the President and Fellows of Queens' were rated at 
=£"33 for their Eversden property, and yet after all the 


Great Bridge was rebuilt by public subscription in 
1754 ! The Colleges subscribed i?191 and a Collection 
in the University Church produced i?30 (Cooper, 
"Ann., 11 iv. 26, 150, 240, 288, 292). 

On November 19th, 1697, Dr. James as Vice-Chan- 
cellor, accompanied the Chancellor, the Archbishop, a 
number of Bishops and Heads of Houses, the Proctors 
and the Members for the University, to Kensington 
Palace to present a loyal address to William III. on the 
conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick. And again the 
Vice-Chancellor waited on the King, December 2, to 
offer His Majesty the volume of poems written by the 
University to celebrate the. King's return and the 
restoration of peace. Dr. James is not mentioned as 
one of the contributors to this volume, but in 1 708 he 
was one of the writers in the collection of Greek and 
Latin Verses composed on the death of Prince George 
of Denmark. Dr. James had become Regius Professor 
of Divinity in 1700, and in that capacity, when Queen 
Anne came to Cambridge, April 16th, 1705, and an 
extraordinary commencement was held in honour of her 
visit, " opened that Ceremony with a very learned and 
eloquent Speech." The Queen went to Trinity, where 
the great Newton was knighted, to St. John's, and to 
service at King's. 

" After Prayers Her Majesty went to Queens' College, 
where she was received by Dr. James in the same manner 
aud with the same expressions of Duty and Loyalty as she 
had been in the other Houses, which she had been pleased 
to honour with her presence : From thence Her Majesty 
took Coach, and returned the same evening to Newmarket, 
very well satisfied with all the marks of Obedience and 


Loyalty which she had met with " (" London Gazette," 
April 19, 1705). 

A Fellow of Queens' was chosen as one of the five 
Delegates sent to represent the University at the 
bicentenary of the University of Frankfort on the Oder 
in 1706, " when the deputation was received at Frankfort 
with the utmost courtesy, the King of Prussia assisting 
in person upon the occasion " (Cooper, " Ann., 1 ' iv. 75). 
This was Henry Plumptre, M.D., who was elected 
Fellow in 1702, but vacated his Fellowship by not 
taking orders. He was afterwards an eminent Physician 
in London and President of the College of Physicians. 

Dr. James was one of the Trustees appointed by the 
will of William Worts to administer his splendid 
benefactions to the University. He was also one of the 
Heads who, in 1710, deprived William Whiston the 
Lucasian Professor, who " believed in everything except 
the Trinity, 1 ' for publishing and avowing Arian tenets 
(Cooper, "Ann.," iv. 86 and 103). He lived to see 
the accession of the House of Hanover, and may have 
been one of the Heads who presented George I. with an 
address of welcome at St. James', September 22nd, 1714, 
and again with an address on the failure of the Old 
Pretender, August 16th, 1715. But his long tenure of 
the Headship was drawing to a close. He had ruled 
Queens' College under six Sovereigns (Charles II., 
James II., William and Mary, Anne, George L), and 
had been President for upwards of forty-one years, when 
he died, unmarried, at the age of seventy-five, March 
15th, 1717. " He had proved himself an excellent 
Master, very attentive to the business and interests of 



the College during his life, and was a considerable 
Benefactor to it at his death." By his will he gave the 
College an estate at Haddenham in Cambridgeshire, 
and an Exchequer annuity of =£50 per annum to found 
four " poor scholarships," a term equivalent to the more 
modern sizarships, at 2.9. 6d. per week each, and for an 
allowance of 2s. 6d. per week in meat to four poor 
people, of whom the College scullion was always to be 
one, and the others were to be named by the President. 
On this bequest Dr. Plumptre notes that " during the 
continuance of the Exchequer Annuity there is a sur- 
plus in this account which is divided among the Master 
and Fellows. When that ceases, March 25th, 1830, this 
dividend will cease also. 1 ' In 1701 Dr. James had 
given £2,0 to the College, on condition that £1 should 
be paid on Christmas Eve in equal portions to the 
eight almswomen "for the purchase of a Christmas 
dinner in commemoration of Lady Joan Burgh, who 
gave St. Nicholas Court to the College.'" Dr. James 
also left to the Library his books and JP50 for pur- 
chasing new books ; and bequeathed money with which 
the Rectory of Grimston, Norfolk, was bought. 

Other benefactions belonging to the period covered 
by this Chapter are these. Bishop Sparrow gave i?100 
for wainscoting and adorning the Parlour (Combina- 
tion-room). Dr. William Roberts, Bishop of Bangor, 
and formerly Fellow, gave =£100 to found a scholarship 
in 1665, with a preference for a poor scholar of the 
diocese of Bangor. In 1670 John Joscelyn gave an 
augmentation out of lands in Sturmer to the Hebrew 
Lectureship founded by his great uncle. But this 
benefaction was lost by a flaw in the settlement. 


Edward Kemp, elected Fellow 1632, ejected 1644 and 
restored 1660, who died Rector of Eversden 1671, gave 
to the Chapel £300, out of which was purchased an 
annuity of ,£16 rising out of an estate at Willingham. 
Thomas Clarke, M.A., Rector of Maningford Abbots, 
Wiltshire, formerly Fellow, gave in 1674 an estate at 
Eversleigh in Wiltshire (exchanged for an estate at 
Kingston, . Cambridgeshire) to found four scholarships 
of £10 per annum each. He desired that one of his 
scholarships should go to the Librarian. £3 was to go 
annually to the College Stock, and the surplus of the 
annual rent to buy books for the Library. " By this 
he is the principal Benefactor to the Library." Matthew 
Andrews, Fellow, in the same year gave all his medical 
books to the Library. Dr. Robert Mapletoft, Fellow, 
afterwards Master of Pembroke and Dean of Ely, gave 
£100 towards purchasing the fee-farm rent payable to 
the Crown for the manor of Eversden, the interest to 
found two poor scholarships and to augment the stipends 
of the Censor Theologicus and the Catechist. Mrs. 
Sarah Bardsey, widow of Dr. Edmund Bardsey, one of 
the ejected Fellows, gave the Rectory of Hickling in 
Nottinghamshire. Richard Bryan, B.D., Vice-President, 
gave £50 in 1680. In 1691 Mr. Thomas Alston, of 
Assington in Suffolk, gave a rent-charge of £3 per 
annum, charged on a farm at Assington, to found a poor 
scholarship, with a preference first for any one of the 
name of Alston, then for a native of Suffolk. David 
Edwards founded a Fellowship, Thomas Edwards, 
LL.D., a scholarship. Griffith Lloyd in 1713 founded 
two poor scholarships with a preference for natives of 
Carmarthen, or failing such of Wales. Queens 1 was 


one of the Colleges which benefited by the foundation 
of Lady Sadleir in 1710. An Algebra Lectureship was 
founded by her with a stipend of £%& paid out of an 
estate in Hampshire. "The Master of Emmanuel 
receives the rent of this estate and pays the stipends " 
(Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 77). 

A regulation passed in Dr. James'' time will show how 
times have altered. On Oct. 26th, 1676, it was decided, 
by the unanimous consent of the President and Fellows, 
that nothing but Latin be spoken in the Hall at dinner 
and supper, not only in term but out of term, by all 
gownsmen constantly (excepting all Scarlet-days, the 
twelve days at Christmas and Commemoration of Bene- 
factors). Apparently this ordinance was found to be 
somewhat severe, for Sept. 13th, 1680, there was a modi- 
fication ; it was desired and consented to that English 
may be spoken on Sundays and holidays and the decree 
be in force at all other times (" Old Parch. Reg.," 157). 
Nous avons change tout cela. Many of the present 
Fellows can remember the time when they were fined a 
bottle of wine for speaking three words of Latin in Hall, 
and recall with mingled amusement and indignation the 
gross injustice practised to render them amenable to the 
penalty. The fine is still nominally in force, but the 
custom, unhappily for the liveliness of the meal, is 
" more honoured in the breach than the observance." 

Francis Master, who was elected Fellow in 1676, is the 
hero of some extraordinary episodes recorded in Dr. 
James' Book. The extracts will tell their own story. 

"'1 Fran : Master, Fellow of Queens Coll, do declare in ye 
presence of God and upon ye faith of a Christian that I 


was not one of those that broke into ye Master's Orchard 
and destroyed ye Fruit-trees in August 1677.' This Mr. 
Master would not subscribe but own'd his shame for it : ' I 
am asham'd of the Act.' Upon Mr. Master's confession 
that he was guilty of that ungratefull and inhuman act, 
and upon his owning himself very sorry for it and upon his 
earnest entreating of my pardon, I was willing to pass it 
by, after he had subscribed w th his owne hand those words, 
viz., ' I am asham'd of ye Act' Oct. 4, 1678 : in my bed- 
chamber. H. J. 

" ' I acknowledge that I said the last Congregation was a 
pack'd Congregation, for which rash and indiscreet words 
I acknowledge myself very sorry.' Francis Master. Oct. 4, , 

1678 : In my bedchamber H. J. 

"Mr. Master, privately admonish'd for Pernoctation 
(which appears to mean stopping all night out of College) 
Mar. 3, 1678, again privately admonish'd for his loose 
living Oct. 4, 1678 w th a promise by his owne hand, in Jan. 

1679 came to officiate at Chappell on a Sunday in ye 
Evening much disorder'd w th drink. In ye same yeare 
from Shrove Monday until ye Friday in Whitsun-week 
never at ye Chappell foure times, lieing for ye most part 
out of ye Coll dureing all that time, and that at houses of 
noe good note, particularly at ye 3 Tuns on Easter Eve 
and Easter-night, and soe continually notwithstanding 
many and frequent messages from myselfe and ye earnest 
importunities of his Friends to repaire to ye Coll. Mr. 
Master return'd to ye Coll about Shrove-tide in ye yeare 
1679 and having lain in ye Town for ye most part at ye 
3 Tuns for 5 weeks together and never been at Chappell 
nor in ye Hall dureing all that time was on 14 Apr : 1680 
punish'd according to ye Statutes for Pernoctation 20'-, and 
then with ye consent of ye Fellows and at his owne request 
sent into ye country and not to return without leave, 


return'd again in Oct : since w ch time he has liv'd very- 
disorderly lieing for ye most part out of ye Coll and 
abstaining from ye Publick Prayers, notwithstanding 
severall messages sent to him he would not repayre to ye 
Coll, but now, viz Nov. 29, 1680, appearing before myselfe 
and ye Society at a publick meeting he was then in my 
owne name and ye names of ye whole Society Ad- 
monish'd according to Statute for his scandalous manner of 
Liveing & ye reproach he brought upon ye Coll. Hen. 

It is to be hoped that Mr. Master became a wiser 
and a better man. The admonitions are not repeated, 
either privately in Dr. James'' bed-chamber or at a 
public meeting. He must at least have ceased his 
scandalous life, for "he was preferred to two livings 
in Canterbury, which vacated his fellowship, 1684." 

Dr. James 1 Book contains abstracts of the College 
Accounts during the greater part of his Mastership. 
The income of the College varied a good deal. As a 
specimen of a good year the Account rendered Lady- 
Day and Michaelmas 1710 (Dr. James 1 Book 11) may 
be taken. The total sum received at Lady-Day is 
returned as i?385 4?. lid., at Michaelmas i?298 0s. lOd. 
To this rent-receipt are added balances which make up 
.£707 2s. Id., but payments amounting to <£104 9s. 
have to be deducted, so that the sum available for 
division is ,£602 13*. Id. Of this the President receives 
two-twentieths, £60 5s. The President pays 15s. Id. 
for Commons, the Fellows 1 Commons amount to 
,£245 4s. 3d., leaving for division among the eighteen 
Fellows ,£297 19*. 5d., or £16 lis. apiece, the odd 1.?. 5d. 
being given Divisori. The Accounts for some parts of 


the property are kept separately, and fines on renewal 
of leases and the like come in periodically. Dr. James 1 
Book contains a full account of the different properties 
then held by the College. From this book it would 
probably be possible to exhibit fully the conditions of 
the College Finances during the period. But space for- 
bids that this should be attempted here. 

In 1685, a year of repairs, a considerable sum was 
spent on the first Court. Dr. James 1 account is this : 

" This yeare all ye first Court was stripp'd, ye Sparrs 
w ch in many places were very bad new lin'd, all ye upper 
Windows made new & regular, the great Gate alter'd, ye 
Gate-House & Regent- Walk (across the Court) new laid 
with Freestone, ye bow-window in ye Hall repair d with 
Freestone & new glass there, ye Dialls new painted, ye 
Cripple betwixt ye library & ye Master's Bedchamber made 
new ; that vast Summer in ye Master's Study, on w cl1 all ye 
Sparrs of that building lean (being rotted at both ends) 
supported by two great pieces of Timber, a Cupola new 
made &c. all w ch make ye moneth (monthly) acct s swell to 
soe great a sum " (" Magn. Journ.," vi. 221). 

The monthly accounts for Sept. 1685, are swollen to 
=£"490, and nearly all this amount was spent upon the 
repairs and alterations named in Dr. James 1 note. 



" In God's name, stop there. Be Church of England men still. 
Do not cast away the peculiar glory which God has put upon you." 

Presidents : John Davies, 1717-1732 ; William Sedgwick, 1732- 
1760; Robert Plumptre, 1760-1788; Isaac Milner, 1788-1820; 
Henry Godfrey, 1820-1832. 

For good or for evil there can be no question that the 
fortunes of the Universities have always been closely 
bound up with the fortunes of the Church of England. 
The closeness of the connexion was remarked and 
reprobated as early as the reign of Elizabeth, when it 
was represented that the Universities were becoming 
too exclusively seminaries for the Anglican clergy. But 
the Bishops at the time were not inclined to loosen the 
ties that bound the Universities to the Church, and it 
was reserved for the nineteenth century to sweep away 
all the restrictions which could prevent any man from 
joining or enjoying the full privileges of the Universities. 
In the eighteenth century the Church of England pro- 
bably sank to the lowest level she has ever reached. 
No more significant condemnation of her condition can 
be found than the warning given to Prince Charles, the 
Young Pretender, " not to judge of the English clergy 







by the Bishops, who were not promoted for their piety 
and learning, but for writing pamphlets, being active at 
elections, and voting as the ministry directed them.' 
The Church, it is true, at no period of her history 
possessed abler scholars among her clergy. But the 
prevailing policy of the State was fatal to the real 
efficiency of the National Church, and general deadness 
and inertia are unhappily the marked features of the 
period. What happened in the Church happened also 
in the Universities. And a College is a microcosm of 
the University, and, as a general rule, exhibits the same 
characteristics, bhe same virtues or the same vices, on a 
smaller scale. And so it was here. Numbers are not 
the only test, or the best test, of the efficiency of a 
College. But to some extent they must be accepted as 
a gauge pf prosperity. The members of Queens' Col- 
lege, who had amounted in 1621 to two hundred and 
thirty, and in 1672 to one hundred and twenty, in 
1753 had sunk to about sixty. There were at that 
date " a Master, twenty Fellows, forty-five scholars and 
eight exhibitioners, total usually about sixty. 11 This 
statement is taken from " Carter's History, 1 ' which the 
late Mr. Cooper characterises as "a very worthless 
book 1 ' ("Ann., 11 iv. 272). And though probably 
Carter's use of the terms " scholars and exhibitioners " 
is not more accurate than his " total, 1 ' it cannot be sup- 
posed that he is greatly mistaken as to the number of 
men then in residence, nor does it appear that the 
number varied very much in the period now under 
consideration. Or again, take as a test the distinguished 
members of the College who lived during the same 
years. The earliest of them should more properly be 


credited to the preceding period. But let these be 
included ; though a long enough list can easily be made, 
and many of the names are the names of men of real 
mark, it will probably be felt that, as a whole, the list is 
inferior to the shorter summaries given in previous 
chapters. The names are taken from the somewhat 
fuller list in Cooper's "Memorials'" (p. 313 ff.) Among 
the better known Queens 1 men, then, are Dr. Lawrence 
Fogg, Dean of Chester (d. 1718) ; Sir Philip Meadows, 
Fellow, Ambassador to Portugal, Denmark and Sweden 
(d. 1718) ; Simon Ockley, Professor of Arabic, a great 
Orientalist, author of the "History of the Saracens," 
&c. (d. 1720) ; Poley Clopton, M.D., Fellow, a distin- 
guished physician (d. 1730); Thomas Fuller, M.D., 
physician and medical writer (d. 1734) ; Dr. Nicholas 
Penny, Fellow, Dean of Lichfield (d. 1745) ; William 
Bramston, Fellow, Commissary of the University (d. 
1734) ; Dr. William Bramston, Fellow, Canon of 
Worcester (d. 1735); Dr. John Warren, Fellow, Pre- 
bendary of Exeter (d. 1736) ; Dr. Thomas Brooke, 
Dean of Chester (d. 1737) ; Joseph Wasse, Fellow, an 
excellent classical scholar, editor of " Thucydides," 
"Sallust," &c. (d. 1738); Sir John Comyns, Chief 
Baron of the Exchequer, author of a " Digest of the 
Laws of England," &c. (d. 1740) ; Dr. Benjamin Lang- 
with, Fellow, Prebendary of Chichester, antiquary 
(d. 1744); Dr. Thomas Brett, nonjuror and contro- 
versialist (d. 1744); Thomas Pellett, M.D., President 
of the College of Physicians (d. 1744) ; Henry Plumptre 
M.D., Fellow, President of the College of Physicians 
(d. 1746) ; Dr. Charles Ashton, Fellow, Master of Jesus, 
a learned critic (d. 1752) ; Dr. Peter Allix, Dean of Ely 


(d. 1758) ; Dr. Isaac Maddox, Bishop of Worcester 
(d. 1759); Dr. Thomas Rymer, Fellow, author of a 
" General Representation of Revealed Religion " (d. 
1761) ; John Hadley, M.D., Fellow, chemist and physi- 
cian (d. 1764); Dr. William Geekie, Fellow, Arch- 
deacon of Gloucester (d. 1767) ; Dr. John Ryder, 
Fellow, Archbishop of Tuam (d. 1775) ; Dr. Benjamin 
Newcome, Dean of Rochester (d. 1775) ; Dr. Richard 
Newcome, Fellow, Bishop of St. Asaph (d. 1769) ; Dr. 
Charles Plumptre, Fellow, Archdeacon of Ely (d. 1779); 
Daniel Wray, Fellow, an admirable scholar and critic 
(d. 1783); Sir George Saville, M.P. for Yorkshire 
(d. 1784) ; Henry Taylor, Fellow, Vicar of Portsmouth, 
one of the writers against Gibbon (d. 1785) ; Abel 
Ward, Fellow, Archdeacon of Chester (d. 1785) ; John 
Mitchell, Fellow, Woodwardian Professor (d. 1793); 
Russell Plumptre, M.D., Fellow, Regius Professor of 
Physic (d. 1793) ; Henry Venn, Fellow, author of " The 
Complete Duty of Man," &c. (d. 1796) ; Peter Newcome, 
Fellow, author of the " History of St. Alban's Abbey " 
(d. 1797) ; William Brown, Fellow, Archdeacon of 
Northampton (d. 1797) ; Owen Manning, Fellow, joint- 
author of " Dictionarium Saxonico et Gothico-Latinum, 11 
&c. (d. 1801); Thomas Fyshe Palmer, Fellow, an 
advocate of Parliamentary reform (d. 1802); Stebbing 
Shaw, Fellow, author of the " History of Staffordshire " 
(d. 1802) ; Joseph Dacre Carlyle, Professor of Arabic, 
Orientalist (d. 1803) ; Robert Acklam Ingram, Fellow, 
a writer on social science (d. 1809); Dr. Claudius 
Buchanan, author of "Christian Researches in Asia, 1 ' 
the famous advocate of missionary work in the East 
(d. 1815) ; Christopher Wy will, an advocate of Parlia- 


mentary reform and religious freedom (d. 1820) ; John 
Hatsell, Clerk of the House of Commons, an authority 
on Parliamentary Proceedings (d. 1820); Thomas 
Harrison, Fellow, Commissary of the University (d. 
1824) ; Thomas Truebody Thomason, Fellow, Chaplain 
at Calcutta, translator of the Old Testament into 
Hindustani (d. 1829) ; James Plumptre, author of 
"Sermons, Dramas, 1 '' &c. (d. 1832). This is a con- 
siderable list, and perhaps the most striking feature in 
it is the variety of the departments in which excellence 
was gained. The names are "many for many virtues 
excellent, None but for some, and yet all different." 
Nevertheless there will probably be few who do not 
think that, on the whole, these names are hardly equal 
to the names of the preceding period. 

If the foregoing reflections are justly conceived, the 
triumphant paean with which Dr. Plumptre opens his 
account of the Headship of John Davies, the twenty- 
third President of Queens' College, will be thought to 
be misplaced. " The Revolution," writes Dr. Plumptre, 
"had now taken place near thirty years, and the 
Hanover Succession near three. In this Golden Age of 
this Island, the season of Mandates was over ; and may 
it never return ! " It is permissible to echo Dr. 
Plumptre's wish, that "the season of Mandates may 
never return," with a private reservation that there may 
be worse evils than mandates in the history of a College, 
and with a refusal to endorse his verdict that the early 
Georgian period was " the Golden Age of this Island." 
But Dr. Plumptre, careful and industrious as he was, 
could not be expected to foresee the thoughts and 
judgments of our day, and it is only too possible that a 


later age will find us of the present time much more 
mistaken and much less meritorious than Dr. Plumptre 
was. " O wad some pow'r the giftie gi'e us, to see our- 
sels as others see us ! " 

However this may be, Dr. John Davies became 
President by the free election of the Fellows, March 23rd, 
1717. John Davies was the son of a London merchant, 
educated at the Charterhouse, entered the College 1695, 
was elected Fellow in 1700 and vacated his fellowship 
by preferment in 1712. He was Chaplain to Dr. John 
Moore, Bishop of Ely, whose library was purchased by 
King George I., and presented to the University. 
"This collection valuable for its extent, being above 
thirty thousand volumes, and for the rarity of its 
treasures both printed and manuscript, is considered 
the greatest benefaction Cambridge has yet received 1 ' 
(Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 140). The Bishop had preferred 
his Chaplain to the Rectory of Fen Ditton and to a 
stall in Ely Cathedral. Davies was a good classical 
scholar and a fine critic, and his work as an editor of 
the Classics (" Cicero's Philosophical Works," " Cagsar's 
Commentaries," " Maximus Tyrius," &c.) was consider- 
able. In the year of his election, George I. visited the 
University, and the President, who was LL.D., was 
admitted D.D. with two other Heads of Houses, Mr. 
Grigg, Master of Clare, and Mr. Waterland, Master of 
Magdalene, the famous theologian, by royal mandate in 
the King's presence. His Majesty was enthusiastically 
received and was most gracious to the University. His 
favour was evidently a reward to Whig Cambridge for 
being good, perhaps also a punishment to Tory Oxford 
for being naughty. David Wilkins, who was one of 


the Doctors created on this occasion, ends his account 
of the proceedings with the words, "What will the 
Sister University say to this ? " (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 148). 
In 1718 Dr. Davies was nominated as Vice-Chancellor 
against the outgoing Vice-Chancellor Dr. Gooch. The 
election was a vote of confidence in Dr. Gooch after the 
dreadful Bentley controversy, and he was re-elected by 
122 votes to 60. Dr. Davies served the office of Vice- 
Chancellor in 1725. He died March 7th, 1732, at the 
early age of fifty-two. His plain tombstone, with its 
short inscription, is not a greater contrast to the ful- 
some panegyrics customary at the time than it is a 
strong proof of his sober taste. His name, age, the 
date of his death, &c, are stated, and then Plura dici 
noluit vir optimus. Many of the Fellows elected during 
his Presidentship attained eminence. Such were 
William Bramston, LL.D., Commissary of the Uni- 
versity, who "died in the Fleet," 1734: William 
Geekie, Chaplain to the Duke of Somerset Chancellor 
of the University, and afterwards Chaplain to Arch- 
bishop Wake and Archdeacon of Gloucester; John 
Ryder, Rector of Nuneaton, Bishop of several Dioceses 
successively in Ireland, who died Archbishop of Tuam 
in 1775, when he was upwards of ninety years of age. 
Joseph Wasse, who was as fine a scholar as Dr. Davies, 
was two years his senior as a Fellow. Wasse was 
Chaplain to the Duke of Kent and subsequently Rector 
of Aynhoe in Northamptonshire. 

William Sedgwick was chosen to succeed Dr. Davies 
in the Presidentship March 15th, 1732. He was the son 
of Leonard Sedgwick, Rector of Thornton and Perpetual 
Curate of Stony-Stratford in Buckinghamshire, was 


educated at Eton, entered Queens' College in 1716, was 
elected Fellow 1723, and was still Fellow at the time of 
his election. " Not being of standing for the degree of 
B.D., he obtained the signatures of a majority of the 
Heads to a Petition to the King for a Mandate for that 
degree, without which the Crown has not granted even 
Mandates for degrees since the Revolution " (Plumptre 
MS.) At the time of his election he held the College 
living of Oakington together with his Fellowship. But 
he vacated it shortly afterwards on being presented by 
Lord Chancellor Hardwicke to the Rectory of St. 
Clement East Cheap, London. 

Structural alterations of some importance were made 
in the College during the time of Mr. Sedgwick. The 
most considerable were the panelling of the Hall and 
covering it with a flat ceiling (happily removed in 
1846), the erection of Essex's building, commonly 
known as the Fellows' Building, and the throwing 
across the river of the famous wooden Bridge. The 
Bridge is no doubt one of the features of the College 
and of Cambridge, and may be set in the balance against 
the barbarism of ceiling the Hall and the incongruity 
of the Essex building with the rest of the College. But 
it should be said in defence of the latter that its 
interior is superior to its exterior and the rooms inter- 
nally are handsome and most comfortable. Here is 
Dr. Plumptre's account of these changes, which shall be 
given in extenso without comment. 

" Early in his (Mr. Sedgwick's) time the Hall was new 
wainscoted and fitted up in its present neat and elegant 
manner, under the direction of Sir James Burrough, then 
Fellow of Caius College and one of the Esquires Beadles, 


afterwards Master of the College (Caius). And in the 
year 1756 the Clunch building extending from the Lodge 
Stair-case by the Town Bridge to the College Kitchen on 
the outside, and forming nearly two sides of the Court 
called Erasmus's Court within, being very much decayed, 
was taken down, and the present useful and ornamental 
building begun in its place. It was planned and executed 
by Mr. Essex,* an eminent Architect and man of good 
understanding and character in Cambridge; and was 
finished (except the fitting up of the rooms) before the 
death of Mr. Sedgwick in 1760. Towards defraying the 
expense of it he had advanced £1000, on condition of 
receiving an Annuity for life from the College, about a 
year and a half before his death. The present Bridge 
from the Cloisters to the Stable-yard was built in the year 
1749, and the wall along the river, as far as the College 
boundaries extend, was carried on and the Grove altered 
from its then nearly natural state to its present one 
(excepting some few additional improvements since made) 
in the three following years. This, and some considerable 
improvements in the Gardens of the College, and in the 
Cloister Court, were principally contrived by and the work 
carried on under the direction of John Fortin the then 
Gardiner (died 1783 after having been Gardiner upwards 
of forty years), a man of excellent skill in the ordinary 
parts of his business, and of some taste and knowledge in 
these superior parts, qualities which were more useful and 
pleasing ; to which he added the more important ones to 
his Masters and himself of being an honest and faithful 

The building, begun September 1756, was finished 

* An account of James Essex will be found, Cooper, ■■ Ann.," iv. 


September 1760, when Mr. Essex was paid twenty 
guineas " for surveying the new Building." 

" It was at that time intended to rebuild the whole of 
the river-front, including the Lodge ; and the part erected 
is only one wing of a more extensive design. The opposite 
wing would have been exactly similar ; the central block 
would have been set in advance of the rest. It was sur- 
mounted by a pediment, and access to the bridge was 
provided through a lofty classical doorway, over which was 
a smaller pediment. The design, which was much admired 
at the time, will be found in the Cambridge Guide for 
1796 " (" Willis and Clark," ii. 18). 

The work, in the Hall was earlier in date. It may be 
premised that the panelling, which was removed, and 
which, after many years of seclusion in the Servants 1 Hall 
of the Lodge, has now been restored to a worthier posi- 
tion in the President's Study, had been put up in 1531- 
1532? It was about eight feet high and consisted of 
" linen " panels surmounted by a frieze which contained 
alternately the arms of benefactors in relief and gro- 
tesque heads finely carved. The full accounts for this 
panelling are printed from the "Magnum Joufnale'" 
by Willis and Clark, ii. 61-68. The total cost was 
£50 5s. 3%d. The Screen was made 1548, but doors 
were not added until 1628 ("Magn. Journ., 11 quoted 
Willis and Clark, ii. 46). Under Sir James Bur- 
rough's direction a flat ceiling with an Italian cornice 
was introduced under the old open-timbered roof. 
Over the high table was erected a composition of wain- 
scot "consisting of coupled Corinthian columns sup- 
porting an entablature and pediment with side-panels 



in the same style ; so that had not the pointed windows 
been retained the whole would have appeared uniform. 
The Oriel remained intact, but the tracery heads of the 
lateral windows were removed " (Willis and Clark, ii. 
46). The work was begun in 1732 and finished in 
1734. The work was entirely to the taste of the 
eighteenth century as Cole's description, written 
February 22, 1742, shows, 

" [The Hall] very lately was elegantly fitted up according 
to the present taste and is now by much y e neatest Hall of 
any in y e University being compleatly wainscoted and 
painted with handsom fluted Pillars behind ye Fellows 
Table at ye upper end of it over w ch are neatly carved ye 
Armes of ye Foundress : at ye lower end of it over ye two 
neat Iron Doors of ye Screens w ch front ye Butteries and 
Kitchin is a small Gallery for Musick occasionally" (MSS. ii. 
12, quoted "Willis and Clark," ii. 46). 

The famous Dial also belongs to this time. Cole 
describes it thus : 

" Over ye W. end [of the Chapel] is a small Tower * and 
against ye side of it w ch fronts ye Court is lately placed a 
very handsome Clock, 1733, and directly under it on ye 
wall of ye Chapel and over ye Door w ch leads to it is also 
lately painted a very elegant Sun Dial with all ye signs. 
This is no small ornam' to ye Court to enliven it." 

The Dial replaced an older one made in 1642. The 
present Dial and the Bridge are commonly connected 

* Taken down in 1804, replaced by a classical clock-turret, which 
in 1848 was removed in favour of the present wooden turret erected 
under the direction of Mr. Brandon, Architect (see " Willis and 
Clark," ii. 51). 


with the name of Sir Isaac Newton. But Newton died 
1728, and Cole dates the Clock and Dial very precisely 
1733 and Dr. Plumptre as precisely dates the Bridge 
1749. However the Bridge replaced another wooden 
one built in 1700, about which it is possible that New- 
ton may have been consulted. 

Mr. Sedgwick did not proceed to the D.D. degree, 
and in consequence the Vice-Chancellorship did not 
come to him until 1741, when he was elected and 
served the office. He is described by his successor as 

" a man of weak nerves and an infirm constitution, which 
he probably render'd still more so by too much indulgence, 
instead of using proper methods and exertions to strengthen 
it. For the last fifteen years of his life he very rarely went 
out of the Lodge. He died Nov. 4th, 1760, in the sixtieth 
year of his age, unmarried, and was buried in the Chapel, 
where there is a monument to his memory." 

Mr. Sedgwick was a considerable Benefactor to the 
College. He gave two freehold estates and a leasehold 
in Northamptonshire, the latter of which (according to 
the direction of his Will) was sold and half of the farm 
at Wrestlingworth in Bedfordshire bought with the 
purchase money. The uses to which his benefaction 
was to be applied iwere left (with some hints of the 
testator's wishes and intention) to his executor, Dr. 
Walker. The benefaction was applied to augment the 
Mastership, to found two scholarships, one of them 
with a preference first for a native of Buckinghamshire 
then of Northamptonshire, the scholars to be named by 
the President. The surplus after the stipends are paid is 
to be divided among such Fellows as are resident in the 


College on November 3, and the six following days. 
Mr. Sedgwick also left his books, amounting to some 
thirteen hundred volumes, as an heirloom to the Lodge. 
The College received other considerable benefactions 
about this time. Ferdinando Smythies, B.D., Vice- 
President, gave in his life-time (about 1725) ,£1500 
Bank Stock, the interest of which was to be employed 
to found three scholarships for B.A.s of £2,0 each, to 
be held in addition to any scholarships they may have, 
to give each of the Almswomen 1*. a week in addition 
to their former allowance and £2 each annually to buy 
coals and cloaks : the residue (if any) to be applied to 
pay for the degrees of poor scholars or to buy them 
books, or assist them in sickness, or in such other 
charitable uses as shall be thought proper by the Pre- 
sident. But, writes Dr. Plumptre, 

"by reason of the fall of interest of Bank Stock these 
scholarships do not hold out now above £l6 per annum, 
and from the rise in the price of coals the Almswomen's 
quantity would have been considerably lessened, if it had 
not been agreed by the Master and Fellows to give them 
a chaldron of coals annually instead of a fixed sum of 

David Hughes, B.D., who died in 1777, and had been 
for many years Senior Fellow, made the College his 
residuary legatee. By this disposition the College got 
his books, whereby the Library was enriched by more 
than 2000 volumes, and £2400 in the Funds. The 
application of the money was left by the will to the 
President, and has been applied to provide Prizes. 
Mrs. Mary Buck, whose first husband was Ralph 


Davenant, gave the Rectory of Sandon in 1736. The 
Rectory of South Walsham and the Vicarage of Rock- 
land St. Peter's in Norfolk were purchased in 1734 
with money left for the purpose by several persons, e.g., 
Dr. Ralph Perkins, Fellow, Canon of Ely, Dr. Hayes, 
Fellow, &c. 

The writer of the MS. history was elected to succeed 
Mr. Sedgwick, Nov. 12th, 1760. Robert Plumptre 

" was the youngest of ten children of John Plumptre, Esq., 
a gentleman of moderate estate in Nottinghamshire, and a 
Member of Parliament above forty years, most of which 
time he was representative of the town of Nottingham. 
He received his school education under Dr. Henry 
Newcome at Hackney, from whence he was removed to 
Queens' College in April 1741. . . . He was chosen 
Fellow March 21st 1745, and his Fellowship had been 
vacated in 1755 by his being preferred, in succession to 
his elder brother Charles (Fellow of Queens' and Arch- 
deacon of Ely), to the Rectory of Wimpole, and Vicarage 
of Whaddon, both in Cambridgeshire, by the favour of the 
then Lord Chancellor Hardwicke (High Steward of the 
University). In Sept. 1756 he married the second daughter 
of Dr. Newcome, his former schoolmaster (by whom he has 
had ten children, nine of whom are living in 1784), and in 
about a fortnight after, and about two months only before 
resigning the Seals, his kind and most excellent patron 
gave him a Prebend in the Church of Norwich. He took 
the degree of D.D. Oct. 18th, preceding his election, per 
saltum, not having till then taken that of B.D." 

Dr. Plumptre was Vice-Chancellor in 1761-1762, 
when an address was presented to George III. at 
St. James', Sept. 3rd, 1762, on the occasion of the birth 


of George IV. (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 308). Dr. Plumptre 
contributed to the Verses written in the honour of the 
marriage of George III., of the Prince's birth, and again 
in celebration of the Peace of Fontainebleau. Another 
contributor to these compositions was the Hon. John 
Grey,ione of the three brothers, sons of the Marquess of 
Stamford, who presented, in 1766, the three pictures of 
Queen Elizabeth Widville, Erasmus, and Sir Thomas 
Smith (painted by Thomas Hudson, whose pupil Sir 
Joshua Reynolds was), which adorn the upper end of the 
Hall. Soon after the Duke of Grafton had succeeded 
his Grace of Newcastle as Chancellor, a change was 
made in the academic dress of the Undergraduates 
which deserves to be chronicled in passing. The head- 
gear of the undergraduates had been a round cap or 
bonnet of black cloth, lined with black silk or canvas, 
with a • brim of black velvet for pensioners, and of 
prunella or silk for sizars. The undergraduates now 
petitioned the Chancellor to obtain consent for them to 
wear square caps, that they might attend his installation 
" in a dress more decent and becoming,'" stating that the 
Heads of Houses had no objection to the proposed 
change. The Duke intimated to the University that 
the square cap might be adopted by the undergraduates, 
and this was done. " In this quiet way was a change 
made in a trifling matter, which if it had happened in 
the days of Whitgift and Cartwright would have set the 
whole University in an uproar " (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 
356). This was in 1769, and in that year, Dr. Law 
having resigned the Professorship of Casuistry on his 
appointment to the See of Carlisle, Dr. Plumptre 
succeeded to the Professorship. 


There was at this time an agitation that B.A.s, who 
were required to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, should 
be released from this requirement, which resulted in 
1772 in the substitution of a declaration, " I, A. B., do 
declare that I am a bond fide member of the Church of 
England as by law established." In the agitation a 
member of Queens' College took a leading part. This 
young gentleman was Charles Crawford, a Fellow- 
commoner of Queens', who presented to the Vice- 
Chancellor a petition signed by a numerous body of 
undergraduates, praying to be released from subscription 
to the Articles on the ground that their academical 
studies did not leave them time " to inquire into the 
abstruser points of theology.'" As the Vice-Chancellor 
took no notice of the document, Mr. Crawford went to 
him and addressed him in these terms : 

"Mr. Vice-Chancellor, I wait upon you again concerning 
the petition of the undergraduates, and would beg to be 
indulged with a few moments hearing. We have received 
as yet no direct answer to our petition, which with great 
submission we think deserves one. It has been intimated 
to us, however, that it is' thought improper to grant us our 
request at this time, lest those in authority in the Uni- 
versity should be said to favour the petition of the clergy. 
We have been told that after that is presented to Parlia- 
ment we may expect relief. Our petition we think to be 
quite independent of the petition of the clergy. We beg 
that our subscription to the Articles may be dispensed with, 
not because we object to any of them, but because we have 
not had an opportunity to study them. You must consider, 
Sir, that there are some who have subscribed their names 
who are to take their degrees in a- few days : they there- 


fore claim an immediate relief. The most zealous advo- 
cates of the Church will not impute to you a desertion of 
its cause by granting our request ; for all mankind with 
one voice cry out against the imposition we speak of as 
absurd and illegal, which an arbitrary Stuart, in the wan- 
tonness of his power, had pleased to establish in the 
University. What answer, Sir, shall I carry back to the 
rest of the subscribers ? " 

The Vice-Chancellor then said that there were many 
names erased in the petition, that other persons were 
also willing to erase their names, and that he had not 
power to grant the petition. In this episode Mr. 
Crawford appears in the light of the plausible petitioner. 
We see him next as an injured innocent. He indicts 
the Porter of Queens 1 College and others for an assault. 
The case was finally decided in the King's Bench, when 
it appeared that Mr. Crawford was expelled the College 
by an order of Sept. 27th, 1773, made by the Master and 
two Fellows, but confirmed by a College order Jan. 13th, 
1774, under the hand of the Master and ten Fellows. 
Mr. Crawford afterwards came into the College garden 
with intent to take possession of his rooms, whereupon 
the defendants took hold of him and conducted him out' 
of the College. Mr. Crawford contended that his 
expulsion was illegal and unstatutable, and consequently 
that the assault was not justifiable. But the Court 
gave judgment for the defendants, intimating that Mr. 
Crawford as a Fellow-commoner was a mere boarder and 
had no corporate rights, but, if he had, his only mode of 
redress was by an appeal to the Visitor ; consequently 
that the order of expulsion must be taken to be a right 
sentence till voided or set aside by the Visitor, and the 


defendants acting under it were thereby justified in the 
assault (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 363 and 378). Is it to be 
supposed that the Vice-Chancellor was very sorry to have 
seen the last of Mr. Crawford ? 

Dr. Plumptre narrates two events in his history at a 
length for which he apologises, on the ground that " he 
has done little more than state facts which scarce any 
one was so well enabled to state as himself, which he 
hopes may amuse the curious, or even perhaps afford a 
degree of use to posterity. 1 ' One of the events led to 
his second tenure of the Vice-Chancellorship, the other 
arose out of his occupation of that office. They 
must be described more succinctly here. In 1777 Dr. 
Thomas, Master of Christs', and Dr. Plumptre, President 
of Queens', were the two heads nominated for the office 
of Vice-Chancellor, and it being Dr. Thomas's turn to 
serve he was duly elected (November 4th). Dr. Thomas 
pleaded that his health would not allow him to take 
office ("he had the gout slightly in one hand"). A 
grace to excuse him on payment of a fine was proposed 
but rejected. However, Dr. Thomas refused to be 
sworn in, and the University was left for a month with- 
out a Vice-Chancellor. Business was at a standstill, 
so the Master of Trinity, Dr. Hinchliffe, Bishop of 
Peterborough, and the Provost of King's, Dr. Cooke, 
approached Dr. Plumptre. He told them that "he 
would be as much ashamed to pass the office over to a 
junior as he was unwilling to take it before a senior," 
and that if Dr. Thomas was formally relieved of the 
Vice-Chancellorship, he would, if elected, serve. On 
consideration of the situation the Heads determined that 
the proper course would be, as Dr. Thomas had been 


chosen by the Senate at large, for the Senate at large to 
have his excuse laid before it dc novo, and approve or 
disapprove of it. There remained the difficulty that 
there was no one to call the Heads together. They 
agreed to sign a request to the Heads to meet : they 
met, the proposed course of action was approved by 
the meeting, and communicated to the Proctors. A 
congregation was called, Dr. Thomas' excuse was 
received, and allowed by a large majority. The heads 
then pricked Dr. Plumptre and Dr. Goddard, Master of 
Emmanuel, for the office of Vice-Chancellor, and on the 
following day (December 3) Dr. Plumptre was elected 
and immediately sworn into office. (See also Cooper, 
" Ann.," iv. 386-387). 

The second event was this. William Howell Ewin, 
LL.D., of St. John's, had been accused before the pre- 
ceding Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Chevalier, Master of St. 
John's, of lending sums of money at exorbitant interest 
to Mr. Bird, Fellow-commoner of Trinity, who was a 
minor, without his tutor's consent. There was no definite 
statute against the practice, and a doubt arose whether 
the Vice-Chancellor could take cognisance of the offence. 
Eminent counsel were consulted, and unanimously gave 
it as their opinion that the offence was cognisable in 
the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and punishable, if proved, 
by suspension, expulsion, or other academical penalty. 
Dr. Ewin had written to Dr. Hinchliffe, Master of 
Trinity, acknowledging his fault and promising not 
to offend again. But the charge was brought afresh 
before Dr. Plumptre as Vice-Chancellor, and tried 
before him and the Heads (October 14th, 1778). Dr. 
Ewin protested against the citation and pleaded " not 


guilty " under protest. The charge was fully proved and 
there was no real defence. The Court adjourned till 
October SI, when the defendant raised further objec- 
tions and then left the court. The Vice-Chancellor and 
Heads gave sentence that the defendant should be sus- 
pended from his degrees, and expelled the University. 
Dr. Ewin thereupon appealed to Delegates — the Dele- 
gates chosen were Dr. Watson, Regius Professor of 
Divinity, afterwards Bishop of Llandaff, Dr. Halifax, 
Regius Professor of Civil Law, afterwards Bishop of St. 
Asaph's, and Mr. Yates, Fellow of St. Catharine's. 
These delegates reheard the case, withdrew the sentence 
of expulsion but confirmed the sentence that the accused 
should be suspended from his degrees. This revision of 
the sentence was, no doubt, a compromise. Dr. Plumptre 
is unable to understand it, but compromises are not 
always logical. However, possibly encouraged by this, 
Dr. Ewin took the case to the King's Bench, where the 
sentence was reversed, and it was ordered that the accused 
person should be restored to his degrees. The ground 
for this decision given by Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief 
Justice, was, that there being no University Statute 
against the offence, the punishment of it was not 
within the jurisdiction of the Vice- Chancellor's Court. 
The practice indicted being dangerous to the existence 
of the University, proofs of the charge should, said the 
Chief Justice, have been laid before the Senate, which 
might have passed sentence of expulsion upon him, or 
such other sentence as it should have judged proper to 
his crime. On which Dr. Plumptre comments : 

"This mode of proceeding the Vice-Chancellor had 
carefully avoided, because he saw that in Dr. Bentley's 


case it had been reprobated by the Court of King's Bench 
as contrary to natural justice, because, the Senate not 
being a Court of Judicature, the accused person could not 
make his defence before it. As he very sincerely submits 
his opinion (as he ought to do) to that of the Court, he 
presumes that he did not sufficiently distinguish between 
the two cases, and can only lament his error in an instance 
in which he most earnestly wished to do right, and which 
called for such exemplary punishment." 

" Who shall decide, when doctors disagree ? " Every- 
one will sympathize with Dr. Plumptre in his legal 
dilemma. There is an account of the case in Cooper, 
" Ann.," 388-389, and the sequel is given 392. Dr. 
Ewin was restored to his degrees, but his name was 
struck out of the Commission for the county and 
a Grace was passed to stop " this most pernicious 

Dr. Plumptre may be quoted for the last time to 
describe the internal events of his Presidentship. 

" In regard to Collegiate affairs worth recording in this 
time they are only as follows. That in the summer after 
his election, the offices on the North side of the Lodge 
Gallery were built for him at the College expense, in lieu 
of some that had stood on part of the ground of the new 
building erected in Mr. Sedgwick's time. The inside of 
the Chapel was likewise entirely refitted, as it now (1784) 
appears, in the years 1774 and 1775, and the Library 
enlarged at the same time by taking into it the principal 
part of a set of rooms that were between that and the 
Chapel, making the remaining part into a Gallery to the 
Chapel for the use of the Master's family." 


These alterations require some explanation. The 
College Order for building the offices, a low range on 
the garden side of the Lodge, is dated March 11th, 1761. 
Fortunately the buildings are not visible except from 
the President's garden. The alterations in the Chapel 
are the natural sequel to the alterations in the Hall 
made during the preceding Presidentship. The Chapel 
had been refitted in 1661 after the ravages of William 
Dowsing (see p. 170). The organ was repaired by the 
celebrated Thamar in 1679, (" Magn. Journ.," vi. 189), 
and a new organ bought in 1710 at a cost of £164 6s. 10^d. 
(" Magn. Journ.," September 1710). The chapel, as it 
then appeared, is described by Cole (MS. II. 13 to 18, 
quoted by Willis and Clarke, ii. 40-41), February 22nd, 
1742, and he paid fresh visits and noted the altera- 
tions in progress July 2nd, 1768 and March 30th, 1773. 
Parts of his description are worth quoting. 

" Come we now to ye Chapel, w ch as I said before takes 
up ye better half of ye S. side of ye 1 st Quadrangle, and 
has a Tower at ye W. end of it : y e Altar is railed round 
and stands on an Eminence of 3 Steps, and is intirely 
covered with Crimson Velvet w th a gold Fringe at all ye 
joynings of it : in ye Front of it in a Glory is a I. H. S. finely 
wrought with gold : on an Eminence on ye Altar ag" ye 
Wall is placed an handsom silver gilt Bason, w* two large 
Candlesticks of ye same sort, and on y se is wrote at ye 
bottom : Deo et Sacris Reginalibus Cardabr : Edw : Martin 
Prcesid : on ye Bason ye same except ye Presidents name. 
.... The upper end of ye Chapel is entirely Wainscoted 
with Cedar from ye Pulpit, w ch is a small one of old 
workmanship and stands in an Arch of ye S. wall, on one 
side, and from ye Vestry Door w ch exactly fronts ye Pulpit, 


on ye other side. Over this Door stands ye Organ Loft 
supported by two Iron Pillars in ye Chapel : and ye Organ, 
w ch is a very handsome one, stands sideways in ye N. wall 
of ye Chapel and has a way up to it by ye Vestry. The 
Chapel is furnished on both sides with 2 Ranges of Stalls 
and wainscoted in ye old manner, but very neatly : ye 
Roof is arch'd and wainscoted, and finely gilt and painted. 
There are more Monuments in this "Chapel than one would 
have expected to have met with considering ye Bigness of 
it, some of which are very curious ones and of good 
Antiquity. ..." 

"The Chapel in the Spring of 1773 was entirely taken 
to Peices and new modelled, tho' it seemed to want it very 
little ; every old and modern Tomb Stone being taken up 
from the Floor, the Altar Peice taken away, with the stalls 
and the blew coved Ceiling taking down in order to refit it 
entirely, . . . The Ceiling being altered from a cove to a 
flat one, the East Window was forced to be lowered. All 
the Monuments and Stones were taken away and those on 
the Walls put in different positions to answer one another. 
The West End was enlarged (by putting back the Screen 
some 3 feet) and a curious painted Room above the Entrance 
into it converted into a Gallery for the Master's Family." 

The College Orders explain the progress of these 
alterations. On December 23rd, 1772, it was agreed to 
refit the inside of the Chapel according to Mr. Essex's 
plans, to make a Gallery for the Master's family " out 
of part of the rooms late Mr. Thwaites's " and to take 
the remaining part into the Library: to appoint Mr. 
Essex Surveyor of the work with 5 per cent, on the 
outlay and to shut up the Chapel on Lady-Day in order 
to begin the work. February 22nd, 1773, it was agreed 
to fit the room over the Butteries for use as a 


temporary chapel. March 16th, 1773, it was agreed in 
refitting the Chapel to make a vault under it, " tp fit 
up the Ante-Chapel with the Cedar wainscot now 
about the Communion Table, to set up the Pew now 
used by the Master's family in the Chancel of St. 
Botolph's Church, and that the room which was 
formerly the Vestry be again used as such." April 12th, 
177ovS«reed that the new Pavement of the Chapel be 
C f Ketton stont with black dots. July 5th, 1774, agreed 
to pave the Chftpel passage with Yorkshire stone, and 
to wash the plain part of the Ceiling and Walls in the 
Chapel a Naples yellow. January 16th, 1775, agreed 
that the area of the Communion Table in the Chapel 
be enclosed with wooden palisades in imitation of iron 
with a Mahogany rail upon them ; to change away the 
Candlesticks belonging to the Communion Table and 
the flagons ; to have new patens for the bread and a 
new bason for collecting the Alms, all of Silver Gilt, 
and the present two Cups new gilt ; that the furniture 
of the Communion Table be entirely new, and that the 
old furniture be given to St. Botolph's parish. The 
last order on the subject arranges for the opening of 
the Chapel on May 8th, 1775, so that it was closed for 
two full years for these alterations, which remained 
undisturbed until 1845. The Library, which still was 
confined to the upper floor, was increased by the 
addition of the greater part of the set of rooms, which 
had up to this time intervened between the Library and 
the Chapel. 

To Dr. Plumptre's time also belongs the alteration of 
the windows in the older part of the College. The 
process began in 1774 and continued during the next 


eight years at intervals. It was ordered that the stone 
window-frames should be scraped and painted a stone 
colour. The eaves in the interior of the Court had 
been changed into parapets at some date subsequent to 
1688. The date of the change is not recorded. But 
happily the Court has escaped the fate with which it 
was threatened at the end of the last century, when it 
was proposed to stucco the building and cut the 
windows down to square heads (see Willis and Clark, ii. 
51-52). The Walnut Tree Court was partially rebuilt 
after a fire, 1778-1782. ,£1490 of Hughes' benefac- 
tion was employed for this purpose. 

The Plumptres were a clever family. Henry 
Plumptre, the Fellow of Queens' who was afterwards 
President of the College of Physicians, was Robert 
Plumptre's uncle. Henry's son, Russell Plumptre, was 
also a Fellow and was Regius Professor of Physic, 
1741-1793. Charles Plumptre, the President's elder 
brother, was Fellow and Archdeacon of Ely. The 
President's second son, James Plumptre, Fellow of 
Clare, was the dramatist, and his second and third 
daughters, Anna and Annabella, were literary ladies of 
considerable note. 

One of the College orders passed in Dr. Plumptre's 
later years introduces the name of his famous successor. 
On February 28th, 1782, leave was granted to Mr. Milner 
" to build a Chemical Laboratory in the Stable Yard 
adjoining to the Coal-house," an order interesting as 
showing that Milner had turned his attention to 
scientific studies. Isaac Milner was bom at Leeds, 
January 11, 1750. He was sent to the Grammar School 
of that town, but, owing to his father's death, when he 


was only ten the boy was taken from school and set to 
earn his living as a weaver. His elder brother, Joseph 
Milner, was appointed to the school at Hull, in 1768, 
and took Isaac with him, and, whether the story that 
the lad was found reading Tacitus at his loom is true or 
not, he had already made considerable progress in 
Classics as well as in Mathematics. In 1770, he entered 
Queens 1 College as a sizar, having, according to the 
story, tramped on foot with his brother all the way from 
Hull. The sizars still performed such menial duties as 
ringing the Chapel bell and bringing up the first dish to 
the Fellows' table, and there is little doubt about the 
substantial truth of the story that Milner, when waiting 
on the Fellows in Hall, being reproved for his clumsiness 
with a tureen of soup, said, " I will abolish this nuisance 
when I am in power," a prediction which his position 
afterwards enabled him to fulfil. In the Tripos of 1774, 
Milner was Senior Wrangler. It is said that he was 
utterly dissatisfied with his own work in the examination 
and despondent about the result. But his performance 
was in reality so brilliant that in issuing the list the 
Moderators wrote Incomparabitts after his name. Milner 
was also first Smith's Prizeman. His election to a 
Fellowship (January 10th, 1776), followed as a matter of 
course, and as early as 1780 he was elected a Fellow of 
the Royal Society. He became Rector of St. Botolph's 
in 1778, retaining the living until 1792. He had 
already acted as Deputy to the Professor of Chemistry, 
when in 1783, the year after his erection of his Chemical 
Laboratory, he was appointed to the newly founded 
Jacksonian Professorship of Natural Philosophy, a chair 
which he held till 1792, when he was Vice- Chancellor. 


Gunning (" Reminiscences," i. 236) describes his lectures 
as being amusing rather than profound. In 1798, Dr. 
Milner became Lucasian Professor of Mathematics and 
held the chair until his death in 1820. 

Isaac Milnei-'s intimate friendship with William 
Wilberforce commenced in 1784, when they met at 
Scarborough. The two friends travelled in company 
for the greater part of a year. They read and discussed 
the Greek Testament together, and Wilberforce describes 
his friend, as he was at this time, in terms which show 
that Milner altered little in character during later years. 
In 1786, Milner's Divinity Act for B.D., excited great 
attention on account of his high reputation for ability, 
which he more than maintained by his performance 
("Gunning, 11 ii. 48). Milner, who was Moderator in 
1780, 1783, 1785, enjoyed an unrivalled reputation for 
his skill as an examiner, and it was common for the 
Moderators to call him in to settle the position of 
candidates whom they had been unable to separate. 
Thus Gunning (" Reminiscences, 11 i. 83) relates how in 
his own year, 1788, Milner was called in to decide the 
Senior Wranglership between Brinkley of Caius and 
Outram of St. John's. 

" The examination was conducted with great seriousness 
and decorum on this occasion; but it not unftequently 
happened that, when examining the brackets, Milner was 
in the habit of indulging in jokes at the expense of those 
unfortunate men who, when dissatisfied with their situation, 
had caused him to be called in. Milner had a very loud 
voice, combined with a peculiar shrillness, by which he 
could make himself heard a considerable distance. He 
was in the habit of calling dull and stupid men sooty 


fellows ; and when he had a class of that description to 
examine, he would call out to the Moderators, who were 
at the other end of the Senate House, * In rebus fuliginosis 
versatus sum.' Among the Moderators and Examiners of 
that day Milner had, and continued to have, during many 
years, a prodigious influence, and was frequently called 
upon to settle the places of men in the higher brackets." 

Isaac Milner was elected President in succession to 
Dr. Plumptre in November 1788. His preferment to 
the Deanery of Carlisle took place in 1791, so that 
Milner was President at 38 and Dean at 41 years of 
age. His promotion to the Deanery was due to the 
influence of William Pitt's tutor, Bishop Tomline, 
rather than to William Wilberforce. As Dean Dr. 
Milner was regular in presiding at the great Chapter 
Meetings, but he did not reside at Carlisle for very 
lengthy periods. However, the undergraduates of 
Queens' seem to have thought otherwise, if the story is 
true that they tore the brass knocker off the President's 
Lodge, and forwarded it to Carlisle with a message, that 
perhaps it might be of some use to the Dean at Carlisle, 
for it was of no use in Cambridge. At Carlisle Milner 
enj oyed great popularity, and when he preached attracted 
such vast congregations that in Paley's phrase "you 
could walk over the heads of the people." A story is 
told of the Dean that on one of his journeys north 
he called on his friend Richardson, the well-known 
Evangelical, at York, and found a maid washing the 
doorsteps. On his next journey he repeated the visit, 
and finding the same maid engaged on the same work 
called out to her, " What, lass, hast not thou finished 
that step yet ? " 


" The University," says Mr. Gunning, " never perhaps 
produced a man of more eminent abilities than Dr. 
Milner." But despite this high praise Mr. Gunning is 
always glad to rake up anything he can that tells against 
Dr. Milner. Thus Mr. Gunning relates at full length 
how Milner, from the time when his election as President 
became imminent, pleaded ill-health, his alleged object 
being to escape the office of Vice-Chancellor. Whatever 
truth there may be in this story, Dr. Milner was elected 
Vice-Chancellor in 1792 and his year is memorable for 
the prosecution of Mr. Frend. The Rev. William 
Frend, M.A., Fellow of Jesus College, published in the 
spring of 1793 a pamphlet entitled " Peace and Union 
recommended to the Associated bodies of Republicans 
and Anti-Republicans. 1 '' The pamphlet created some 
excitement, and members of the University waited upon 
the Vice-Chancellor to express a wish that the work should 
be censured by the University. On March 4, a meeting 
was held in Queens' Lodge, at which it was resolved to 
prosecute the writer in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and 
a Committee was appointed to manage the prosecution. 
Mr. Frend was summoned to appear on May 3, to answer 
a charge of having violated the statutes of the University 
by attacking the Church of England. Mr. Frend 
declined to own the jurisdiction of the Court, but, this 
objection being overruled, the case against him was set 
forth, and the Court was adjourned until May 10, to 
give Mr. Frend time for his defence. On that day Mr. 
Frend denied the articles against him, asserting them 
to be false, wicked and malicious. Then evidence for the 
prosecution was given, which occcupied the Court 
May 10, 11, and 13. On May 17, Dr. Kipling the pro- 


moter summed up the evidence. On May 24 Mr. Frend 
made his defence, to which Dr. Kipling replied. On 
May 27, the Vice-Chancellor and Heads met to consider 
their decision, which was delivered on May 28, to the 
effect that Mr. Frend was proved to be the author of 
the pamphlet, that he had offended against the statute 
" De Conchmibus" and must publicly retract his error. 
Mr. Frend on May 30 declined to do this ; he said he 
would sooner cut off his hand than sign the paper. 
Upon this the Vice-Chancellor addressed the University 
and pronounced a decree, signed by himself and nine 
other Heads of Houses, banishing Mr. Frend from the 
University. From this sentence Mr. Frend appealed, 
but the Delegates, Sir William Wynne, LL.D., of 
Trinity Hall, John Hey, D.D., of Sidney Sussex, John 
Barlow Seale, D.D., of Christ's, John Lane, M.A., of 
Queens', and Edward Christian, M.A., of St. John's, 
unanimously affirmed the Vice-Chancellor's sentence. 
And Mr. Frend's application to the King's Bench for a 
mandamus also failed. Mr. Frend was also removed 
from the precincts of Jesus College by resolution of the 
Master and Fellows, and his appeal to the Visitor, the 
Bishop of Ely, against this sentence was dismissed 
(Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 447 ff., Gunning, " Reminiscences," 
i. 255 ff.). Mr. Gunning criticises Dr. Milner's conduct 
in the following terms : 

" to an attentive observer of the proceedings in the Vice- 
Chancellor's Court, it was apparent from the first that the 
Vice-Chancellor was determined to convict, otherwise the 
blunders of the Promoter were so gross and so palpable, 
that he must have been defeated. In the examination of 
witnesses, the forms established in courts of justice were 


constantly violated, and every objection brought forward 
by Frend, whether founded on the Statutes of the Univer- 
sity or on the maxims of civil law, were (sic.) overruled by 
Dr. Milner." 

It is probably true that Milner showed his feelings 
very plainly, and also true that his manner was always 
characterized by a tinge of despotism. But Milner was 
a strong and convinced Tory, and no one of any fairness 
will suppose that he did not act in accordance with what 
he believed to be the interests of the University and the 
requirements of the case. 

On Dr. Milner's government of his College Mr. 
Gunning is equally severe. Commenting on the state- 
ment of Milner's biographer, that previously " Queens' 
College had greatly decreased in reputation ; from this 
time, however, this College, once distinguished by the 
residence of Erasmus, steadily and rapidly advanced in 
character and importance," Gunning says : 

" It is very true that the College entirely changed its 
character, and that the Society, which, under the Presi- 
dentship of Dr. Plumptre, had been distinguished for its 
attachment to Civil and Religious Liberty, became after- 
wards as remarkable for its opposition to liberal opinions. 
By the assistance of his brother (who was a learned and 
devout man, and discharged most conscientiously the 
duties of a schoolmaster and clergyman at Hull) the 
number of students increased ; but the majority of them 
were men who in those days were termed Methodists, after- 
wards Calvinists, and then Serious Christians. Previously to 
his being President these Low-Church doctrines had been 
entirely confined to Magdalene College. . . . Dr. Milner 
soon acquired that entire ascendency over the Fellows, 


that after a few years no one thought of offering the 
slightest opposition to his will. Hammond married and 
left the College ; Fyshe Palmer was transported for sedition 
in Scotland; Jordan took a living; also Marris (formerly 
called Beau Marris) ; Plumptre went to the Bar and 
vacated his Fellowship ; and George Hewitt, who had 
lived on a curacy at Eversden, was ordered into residence 
as a lenient punishment for his irregularities in the country, 
of which the President said ' he was in possession of the 
strongest proofs.' John Lodge Hubbersty was also a 
Fellow : he was described in the Gazette as ' Fellow of 
Queens', Master of Arts, Doctor of Medicine, Barrister-at- 
Law, Recorder of Lancaster, a Cotton Spinner and a 
Bankrupt.' I understood that at the last College Meeting 
at which Milner was present, he recommended Hubbersty 
(who had shown some disposition to oppose him) to be 
prepared to prove at the next Meeting that he was 
statutable a Fellow of that Society." 

The animus of this passage is more evident than its 
argument. Was it a proof of Milner's tyranny, that 
Fellows took livings, or went to the Bar or even were 
transported for sedition ? * That there were proofs of 
Mr. Hewitt's irregularities will unhappily appear only 
too probable to those who have heard the stories still 
current of the conduct of that eccentric gentleman. 
And the question might fairly be raised whether Mr. 
Hubbersty did hold one of the Dispensation fellowships : 
if he did not, his fellowship should have been resigned, 
whether or not he ' showed some disposition to oppose 
the President.' The words "Civil and Religious 

* "Thomas Fyshe Palmer, M.A., was expelled the College on 
account of his seditious conduct " Jan. 16th, 1794 (Order-book). 


Liberty," all with capitals, disclose the reason of 
Gunning's dislike. Gunning was a Whig, Milner was a 
Tory, who appeared to Gunning, in those days when 
party spirit ran so high and Whigs were accused of 
being Jacobins, Revolutionists and what not, to be a 
strong-handed oppressor of the party to which he 
belonged. That Milner was a strong Evangelical and 
did all in his power to make the College Evangelical there 
is no doubt. But the fact that a man of Milner's 
known views was President was in itself a sufficient 
reason why men of Evangelical views should join the 
College. To the period belong the names of men so 
deservedly esteemed as John and Henry Venn, both 
Fellows. And it cannot be seriously disputed that the 
prosperity of the College revived considerably under 
Milner's rule. Its members were elected to fellowships 
in other societies. The numbers were maintained, when 
the numbers at most colleges diminished seriously, during 
the French War. In 1813 the College stood fourth on 
the list in point of numbers. And during what may be 
called the forty years' supremacy of Milner (1780-1820) 
there were four Senior Wranglers, Ingram in 1784, 
Harrison in 1793, Thomas Penny White in 1802, and 
Joshua King in 1819 ; G. H. Law, the future Bishop of 
Bath and Wells, was second Wrangler and first Chan- 
cellor's Medallist in 1781, while men high in the list are 
quite common, a sufficient proof that the College 
attracted able men and that it was most efficient as a 
place of education. It is easy to prove that Dr. Milner's 
rule, if despotic, was able and conducive to the prosperity 
of the College, and that being granted, the reader may 
choose for himself between the eulogies of Miss Milner, 


the Dean's niece and biographer, and the disparagement 
of Mr. Gunning. 

In the great flood of February 10th, 1795', the water 
invaded Queens' College: The river rose suddenly in 
the evening, and it is said that a member of the College 
returning home from a ball, quite unconscious of what 
had taken place, sprang from the top of the steps in 
the Cloisters, and was not a little surprised to find him- 
self up to his waist in water. 

The name "Kidman's Staircase," applied to the 
staircase which leads from the east end of the Gallery in 
the Lodge to the President's garden, arose from an 
occurrence of this time. Burglaries had been frequent in 
Cambridge for some time, and several colleges had lost 
considerable quantities of plate. The offenders were at 
last discovered to be William Kidman, a whitesmith, 
William Grimshaw, a chimney-sweep, and Henry Cohen, 
a Jew who disposed of the plunder, and these three 
rascals were brought to justice in 1801. Kidman, the 
story goes, had determined to rob Queens' College and 
had entered the Lodge from the garden by this stair- 
case. But Dr. Milner was sitting up late in the Gallery 
reading, Kidman saw the light from his lamp under the 
door and ventured no farther (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 470, 
Willis and Clark, ii. 22). 

Dr. Milner was Vice-Chancellor again in 1809. 
During his year of office a curious action for slander 
was brought in the King's Bench by Dr. Browne, Master 
of Christ's, against Mr. Renouard, Fellow of Sidney, 
when Dr. Milner as Vice-Chancellor claimed cognisance 
of the case, and ultimately i his claim was allowed. The 
Vice-Chancellor appointed a day for proceeding with 


the case, but the plaintiff not appearing the case was 
dismissed (" Life of Milner," 383-421). In 1811 Dr. 
Milner was one of the principal speakers at a crowded 
meeting in the Town Hall, at which the Cambridge 
Auxiliary Bible Society was established. This meeting 
gave rise to a controversy between Dr. Milner and Dr. 
Herbert Marsh, who opposed the project on the ground 
that it was not right to circulate the Bible without the 

It is happily unnecessary to go into the misunder- 
standings which arose between the President and the 
Fellows of Queens' College. Dr. Milner's view, and his 
consequent conduct, were characteristic of the man, and 
exhibit clearly his resolution to govern the Society to 
the best advantage and at the same time an iron- 
handedness which earned him the character of being 
despotic. Dr. Milner's position is sufficiently illustrated 
by the following extract from a letter recommending 
Mr. Thomason, Fellow and Tutor of Queens' College, 
written in 1807 : 

" Some time ago Queens' College, of which I have the 
honour to be Master, was in want of a Tutor ; and there 
not being a person of my own College whom I judged 
proper for this truly important situation, I fixed upon Mr. 
Thomason (who took his degree from Magdalene as 5th 
Wrangler in 1796), after looking very diligently through 
the whole University; and I was certainly induced to 
appoint him Tutor of Queens' College, entirely on account 
of his high reputation for learning, good principles and 
exemplary conduct" ("Life," 344). 

Needless to say Mr. Thomason's career amply justified 
the President's estimate of him. Dr. Milner's letter of 


advice about lectures to another Tutor, the Rev. W. 
Mandell (3rd Wrangler 1803, Fellow 1805), is inter- 
esting as throwing some light upon the educational 
system of the time z 

"The Greek books in which I used to lecture were 
these : Prose. — Xenophon's Memorab, as an easy book for 
pupils who know any Greek at all ; then Demosthen. 
Orations, as a harder ; Longinus, as still harder and afford- 
ing to the lecturer a deal to say. Verse. — I used Euripides 
and Sophocles : In Latin, select parts of Livy, particularly 
in Second Punic War. In Morals, Locke's Essay is indis- 
pensable" ("Life," 364.). 

It is probably due to the fact that this is a hasty 
note that only one Latin author is mentioned. It 
would be curious to learn how long it is since Longinus 
has been selected for the lecture-room, though there is 
no ground for cavilling at Dr. Milner's estimate of that 
author or of what a lecture upon him will entail upon 
the lecturer. 

The story of Kidman narrated above will suggest 
that Dr. Milner was in the habit of sitting up late to 
read. This was the case, and dissatisfied with the 
lamps of the period he determined to invent a lamp for 
himself. After some attempts he succeeded and 
obtained a lamp 

"as perfect as such an implement could well be. The 
light was shaded from the reader's eyes ; it was thrown 
strongly upon the paper before him ; there was neither 
shadow nor smoke ; and finally the trimming and adjusting 
gave no trouble worth mentioning. In fact this lamp was 
a decided ' hobby horse ' " (" Life," 365). 


The lamp, it appears, was really so good that many 
men were glad to procure it, and the Dean's servant 
carried on a profitable trade in lamps for many years. 

Dean Milner, always a big man, attained huge pro- 
portions in his later years. This is clear not only from 
his portraits but from the piece of furniture known as 
" Milner's chair " in the Gallery of the Lodge, in which 
two men of ordinary girth can sit, and in which three 
ladies of slender proportions have contrived to bestow 
themselves. An investigation of Milner's life soon 
removes most of the prejudices, which are not unlikely 
to be felt against him by those who have never troubled 
themselves to ascertain whether their prejudices were 
well founded or not. He was big, boisterous and over- 
powering. His manner perhaps more than his conduct 
brought upon him the charge of being despotic. On 
the other hand he was a sincerely religious man; his 
private papers show a depth of religious feeling and a 
scrupulous conscientiousness not easily overstated. As 
to his abilities Mr. Gunning may be quoted again : 

" The abilities of the Dean were of the very highest order ; 
his acquirements most extraordinary ; and the versatility of 
his talents quite wonderful. It was an observation of 
Professor Carlyle that ' if the Dean had undertaken to 
work a lace veil, he would have done it better than any 
female brought up to the business ' " (" Life," 419). 

Isaac Milner was a deeply affectionate man, witness 
his friendship with Wilberforce and his love for his 
brother Joseph, to whom he declared that he owed 
everything. This love led him to complete his brother's 
Church History, to edit his Sermons and to write his 


Life, a task involving enormous labour and engrossing 
Milner's time for years, but with him a labour of love. 
He was a very generous man, as was proved repeatedly. 
And he was very fond of the young, as for instance his 
kindness to Henry Martyn, when he came to be 
examined for the Smith's Prizes, and to T. B. Macaulay 
(Lord Macaulay), when as a school-boy of twelve he 
came to stay at the Lodge and found the formidable 
Dean " a delightful companion for a boy.' 1 The young 
Macaulay repeated his visit on two subsequent 

Dean Milner writes during an enforced absence from 
Cambridge, " Be assured that my heart is in College." 
One of his last services to the College and the University 
was to secure the brilliant Orientalist, Samuel Lee, 
Professor of Arabic, afterwards Regius Professor of 
Hebrew. His last days were soothed by the presence 
of Mr. Wilberforce, who was by his side when he passed 
away April 1st, 1820. Dr. Milner was a great benefactor 
to the Library, to which he left by will more than 3000 
volumes. " This collection is particularly rich in works 
on the Reformation and in modern Mathematical 
Treatises." He likewise left i?500 to augment the 
pensions of the alms women. 

The election of Dr. Milner's successor gave rise to 
legal proceedings. The person chosen was Henry 
Godfrey, B.D., who stood 5th on the list of Fellows and 
was 13th Wrangler in 1802, the year in which Thomas 
Penny White was Senior Wrangler. But the validity 
of the election was disputed by William Mandell, B.D., 
Tutor of the College, 3rd Wrangler in 1803. Two 
petitions were laid before the Court of Chancery, one 


from Joshua King, Fellow of the College, who prayed 
that the Court, on behalf of the Visitor, would inquire 
whether the office of Master was vacant, and, if it should 
be found to be so, whether the Fellows ought to proceed 
to a new election, or whether the right of appointment 
had devolved to the Crown. The grounds on which 
this application rested were, that on the 12th day after 
the death of Dr. Milner, the Fellows in compliance 
with the Statutes proceeded to elect a new Master, 
when Mr. Godfrey was chosen by a majority of votes. 
Immediately after the election Mr. Godfrey required 
the Senior Fellow to admit him to the office, when 
he was informed that it was first necessary for him 
to sign the declaration of faith required by the Act 
of Uniformity. Mr. Godfrey, however, neglected this 
intimation, and, as Mr. King contended, went through 
the usual form of admission by receiving the keys and a 
copy of the Statutes. The other petition was from 
Mr. Mandell, who had been the opposing candidate to 
Mr. Godfrey at the time of the election. Mr. Mandell 
stated that Mr. Godfrey obtained a majority of votes 
by voting for himself as Fellow for Middlesex, although 
there was at the time another Fellow for that county, 
and it was provided by the Statutes that there never 
should be more than one Fellow for Middlesex in the 
College at one and the same time. Upon this ground 
Mr. Mandell claimed to be Master of the College. For 
answer Mr. Godfrey contended that the form of 
admission was not completed by the delivery of the keys 
&c, until some subsequent ceremony was performed in 
the Chapel of the College. This ceremony he had gone 
through several days after he had signed the declaration 


of faith before the Vice-Chancellor. He therefore 
maintained that he had not violated the provisions of 
the Act of Uniformity. With respect to the allegations 
that he was not entitled to vote as Fellow for Middlesex, 
Mr. Godfrey asserted that it had been the immemorial 
usage of the College to maintain two Fellows for that 

The proceedings were protracted, and it was not 
until March 27th, 1821, that the Lord Chancellor 
delivered judgment. Lord Eldon decided (1) that Mr. 
Godfrey must be considered at the time of the election 
de hire Fellow for Middlesex, and therefore that Mr. 
Mandell's claim to the Mastership fell to the ground ; 
(2) that according to the intention of the Statutes and 
the constant usage of the College, the admission of the 
Master was not completed by the delivery of the 
keys, &c. Hence it was evident that Mr. Godfrey had 
signed the declaration of faith required by the Act of 
Uniformity previously to his admission (" St. James's 
Chronicle," March 29th, 1821 ; Cooper, " Ann.," iy. 532). 
The election therefore was declared to be valid. The 
reason why a majority of the Fellows voted against 
Mr. Mandell is to be found in the unhappy mental 
aberration of which he was afterwards the victim. It 
should be said that Mr. Godfrey gave the College no 
reason to repent the choice made of him as President 
during his twelve years' tenure of the office. He was 
Vice-Chancellor in 1822. 

Queens' College ^appeared in the Courts again a few 
years later. The question was about the interpretation 
of a Statute, on which some of the Fellows presented a 
petition to the King as Visitor, and the point at issue 


was whether the concurrent voice of the President was 
necessary in all College elections. The case for the 
petitioners was argued by Mr. King, Fellow and sub- 
sequently President of the College. The judgment of 
the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, was that by the 
Statutes of the College the concurrence of the President 
was required (Cooper, " Ann.," iv. 558). 

Half-way up the list of Fellows at the time of Mr. 
Godfrey's election as President was the name of George 
Cornelius Gorham. He was the son of a banker at 
St. Neots, was born 1787, educated by a Quaker, 
entered Queens 1 College in 1805, gained the Norrisian 
Prize, with an essay on Public Worship, and graduated 
as 3rd Wrangler and 2nd Smith's Prizeman in 1808. 
" Coming events cast their shadows before." For when 
he presented himself for ordination, the Bishop of Ely 
(Dr. Dampier) was so displeased with his views on 
Baptism that there was a question whether the Bishop 
would ordain him. But Mr. Gorham stood firm by his 
views, and the Bishop gave way. Mr. Gorham was 
elected Fellow in 1810 and held his fellowship until 
1827, but, with the exception of the three years 1811- 
1814, when he came up and took pupils, he resided 
little in Cambridge, which perhaps is the reason why he 
was not thought of, when the Mastership became vacant 
by the death of Dr. Milner. Mr. Gorham devoted 
himself enthusiastically to the study of geology, and it 
is no disrespect to the memory of the great Professor 
Sedgwick to say that, when they were rivals for the 
Woodwardian Chair in 1818, Mr. Gorham knew more 
of the subject than his successful competitor. 

But the publication of his book on " the History and 


Antiquities of Eynesbury and St. Neots in Huntingdon- 
shire and St. Neots in Cornwall," marked Mr. Gorham's 
zeal for the study in which he really won his fame, viz., as 
an antiquary. His subsequent publications on the history 
of Maidenhead and of his own family " the De Gorrams," 
bore upon the same subject. The works connected with 
the unhappy controversy were alone an exception. Into 
the history of that controversy it is unnecessary to enter 
here. Suffice it to say that, when he was presented to 
the living of Brampton Speke by Lord Chancellor 
Cottenham in 1847, the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Henry 
Philpotts, insisted on his right to examine before 
instituting, and after examination refused to institute 
Mr. Gorham on account of his views on Baptism ; that a • 
long litigation with varying results followed ; and that 
the final triumph of Mr. Gorham was at least one cause 
of important secessions from the Church of England, for 
instance, Cardinal (then Archdeacon) Manning's. In 
the end Mr. Gorham was instituted to Brampton Speke 
in 1851, a public subscription was raised to defray the 
heavy expenses of the litigation and a testimonial 
presented to him. Mr. Gorham died at Brampton 
Speke in 1857. Mr. Gorham spent much care on an 
edition of the Statutes of Queens' College in 1822. 

Soon after Mr. Godfrey's election considerable altera- 
tions were made in the Library. The building was re- 
roofed and repaired throughout at a cost of i?300 
(Order-book, November 9th, 1820). The Library was 
still confined to the upper storey. The resolution to 
incorporate the rooms underneath into the Library was 
not passed until January 10th, 1837. There were repairs 
in the Lodge and the Walnut Tree Court and the 


Lodge was "furnished at the Master's discretion 1 '' 
(May 29th, 1822). An order of January 17th, 1823, 
shows that the change in the value of money was being 
felt. This order runs : 

" Agreed that in consequence of the depreciation of the 
value of money it is equitable that the foundation and 
other scholarships of small amount should be increased, 
but that several being inconsiderable rent-charges incapable 
of augmentation it would be for the advantage of the 
College to diminish their number by consolidating them 
and augmenting their value ... to render them worthy 
of competition.'' 

As the Library was repaired, so it was catalogued at 
this time. It was agreed January 13th, 1826, " to print 
250 copies of the classed catalogue of the Library now 
preparing by the Rev. T. H. Home, 11 i.e., Thomas 
Hartwell Home, who was a "ten-year man 11 and 
member of the College. 

In these days of late dinners it is quite a shock to be 
reminded how early dinner in Hall was in the first part 
of the present century. Only in January 1831 was the 
dinner-hour changed from 3 to 4 p.m., and even then it 
was ordered that the meal should take place "at 4 
o'clock precisely, and that during one month before and 
after the shortest day it be fixed at 3£ o'clock." And 
concurrently the hour of Evening Service was altered 
to 5.30 p.m. Then came supper in Hall at 8 p.m. 
Riding and walking were practically the only relaxa- 
tions available for the undergraduate of the period. 
Boating and cricket were coming into popularity, 
athletics, football, &c, were still in the future. The 


institution of the Boat races and the Cricket-match in 
1827 and the Inter-University Boat-race in 1829 
speedily popularised and systematized these forms of 
exercise, and the gradual postponement of the hour of 
dinner in Hall is to be attributed quite as much to the 
change "of habits consequent upon them as to the dictates 
of fashionable taste. 



" Merses prof undo, pulchrior evenit." 

Presidents: Joshua King, 1832-1857; George Phillips, 1857-1892; 
William Magan Campion, 1892-1896 ; Herbert Edward Ryle, 1896. 

The Senior Fellow of the College, who is a storehouse 
of information about Cambridge during the reign of 
Queen Victoria, and who could, if he but would, continue 
Gunning's "Reminiscences'''' with the verve and with 
the knowledge which such a book demands, dates his 
connexion with Queens' College from the year 1832. 
Hence the period to be sketched very briefly in this 
chapter is "within living memory." In 1832, when 
Mr. John Clark, as a freshman, travelled by coach from 
York to Cambridge, he carried letters of introduction 
to the President of the College. But he arrived only 
to find that Dr. Godfrey was dead and that he was 
expected, as a member of the College, to attend Dr. 
Godfrey's funeral. 

The succeeding President was Joshua King, who was 
Senior Wrangler in 1819, was elected Fellow January 
14th, 1820, and was Junior Fellow at the time of Dean 
Milner's death. Mr. King was " allowed to divert to 
the study of civil law," in other words was dispensed 

From a photograph by] {J. Palmer Clarke, Cambridge 



from taking orders, January 13th, 1824. In 1829 he was 
elected Lucasian Professor of Mathematics and held the 
Chair until 1849, when on his resignation the present 
distinguished occupant of the Chair, Sir G. G. Stokes, 
was appointed. At the time of Dr. Godfrey's death 
Mr. King was Senior Tutor of the College. It was 
generally desired by the Society that Mr. King should 
be their President, but by the Statutes the President 
was required to be in orders, and Mr. King was a 
layman. A dispensation from the Crown was therefore 
required for his election, but as Mr. King was a Tory 
and the Whigs were in power it was feared there might 
be difficulty in obtaining the dispensation. However, 
the dispensation was duly granted and Mr. King was 
elected. He was Vice-Chancellor in the following year, 

In Dean Milner's time there were frequent orders 
that old plate should be melted down to provide articles 
of silver for use in the Lodge. Perhaps all the anti- 
quated silver had been treated in this way, or else the 
funds at the disposal of the Society were larger, for in 
1833 i?200 was spent on new plate for the College, 
But three Fellowships were still sequestered and the 
College was still borrowing money periodically. There 
is one transaction of this period which can be viewed 
only with unmixed regret. During the preceding 
mastership negotiations had been carried on between 
the University and the College about the site of the 
old printing press in Silver Street, part of which had 
been rented by the University from the College but was 
no longer needed by the University, since the Press had 
been moved to its present position. The University 


and the College had failed to come to terras about this 
property, and the College now offered the ground to 
St. Catharine's. The offer was accepted and the pro- 
perty was sold to St. Catharine's in 1836. There were 
certain restrictions which were intended to preserve 
Queens' College from danger of any nuisance arising 
from this site in the hands of its new owners. But the 
policy of selling was a terrible blunder. At all costs 
the College should have retained the property, and 
should have purchased along the north side of Silver 
Street, until the whole block belonged to Queens'. The 
alienation of this property entailed the transference of 
the Almshouses from Silver Street to their present site, 
which was no doubt convenient then, but is not very 
suitable now that the College has been extended in this 

The system of beneficial leases had proved very 
detrimental to the permanent interests of the College. 
The fines paid for the renewal of the leases were divided 
among the President and Fellows at the time ; nothing 
was laid by, no provision made for the future welfare of 
the College. That the plan was prejudicial was now 
seen. On January 16th, 1845, a most important resolu- 
tion was passed. It is entered in the books in the 
handwriting of Dr. Phillips, then Senior Tutor. Dr. 
King had had a paralytic stroke, and after 1840 only 
signed his name in the Conclusion-book. The resolu- 
tion runs as follows : 

" The Society being impressed with the conviction that 
the present system of letting the College property by 
beneficial leases is highly injurious to the permanent 
interests of the College, and being desirous of introducing 


in the place of the said system the mode of letting upon 
rack rent, do resolve not to offer . . . [certain leases] for 

The resolution was repeated on subsequent occasions 
and the number of beneficial leases steadily reduced. 
In 1849 the money borrowed at different times by the 
Society amounted to £1 0,200. It is not too much to 
say that this state of things was entirely due to the 
pernicious system of fines, which were divided as soon 
as they were received. But the body now set to work 
in earnest to extinguish the debt. In January 1851, a 
committee was appointed to frame a new scheme for this 
purpose. On the report of this committee ,£2000 was 
at once paid off and a method of payment was adopted 
which would clear off the debt in twenty-one years. In 
1851 ,£244 was appropriated for the purpose, in 1852 
,£269, in 1853 £279 10*., and so on. 

In Dr. King's time work of great importance was 
undertaken in the Chapel and in the Hall. 

In 1845 the plaster ceiling of the Chapel was 
removed. The beams of the old oak_ roof were found to 
be in a bad condition, so a new oak roof was made in 
exact imitation of the original roof. Shortly after- 
wards the east window was restored and filled with 
stained glass by Mr. Barnett of York, the cost being 
covered by subscriptions raised from members of the 
College. But these were only preliminary steps toward 
the complete restoration, which followed after Dr. 
King's death. The renovation of the whole interior 
was undertaken in 1858. The work was entrusted to 
Mr. G. F. Bodley, and was finished in 1861. Two sets 


of rooms at the south-east corner were taken into the 
Chapel, to form an organ-chamber, and connected with 
the chancel by a lofty arch. The altar platform was 
raised on three steps, and space was made for a reredos 
by blocking the lower portion (some four feet) of the 
east window. The reredos was of polished alabaster, 
inlaid with encaustic tiles, and the east end was paved 
with encaustic tiles. The wood-work of the stalls was 
removed and replaced by work on the same plan, but 
more ornate in character. The general style of the 
work may be described as Romanesque. A full de- 
scription of it is given in Willis and Clark, ii. 42-43. 
The windows on the north side were given, one by 
Thomas Beevor, Fellow, in 1849, the other by various 
members of the College in 1850. The central window 
on the south side was a memorial to Joshua King, 
the others were given by James N. Goren, Fellow, 
in 1860 and 1879 respectively. These three windows, 
which are by Hardman, have now been removed to the 
south side of the new Chapel. The east and north 
windows and the reredos remain in situ, although the 
old Chapel is now part of the Library, and oak book- 
cases run along the north and south sides. The 
wooden belfry was erected at a cost of £380 in 1848. 
The bell which it contains is much more venerable. It 
is inscribed MILES GRAIE FECIT 1637. It is 15 
inches across at the top, 30 inches at the bottom, with 
a depth of 22 inches, and the metal is 2| inches thick 
at the top, 2% inches at the bottom. The bell deserves 
this much description, not only because of its venerable 
age but in honour of its clear tones, which have often 
been distinguished as far as the railway bridge over 


the river. The present clock-face was put up in 
1853. « 

In the Hall, between 1819-1822, the oriel window 
had been ornamented with the arms of the Foundresses, 
Masters, and other distinguished members of the College, 
beautifully blazoned and stained in glass by Charles 
Muss, " enamel painter to the King." This piece of 
work cost in all i?454 10*. In 1846 the flat ceiling was 
removed and the old roof uncovered. The ceiling had 
been attached to the tiebeams of the roof, which were 
uninjured, but the braces had been cut away and had 
now to be replaced. The architect of this work, Mr. 
Dawkes, at the same time constructed the louvre, which, 
according to the best authorities, is neither correct nor 
necessary. The windows, which were then divided into 
three lights by plain mullions, were fitted with new 
stonework and tracery. In 1854 the oriel was restored 
and filled with stained glass by Hardman, the glass 
inserted in 1822 being removed to the Lodge. The 
cost of these improvements was defrayed by the 
generosity of Robert Moon, Fellow and afterwards 
Honorary Fellow. Mr. Moon was not satisfied with 
the tracery of the other windows. So he again came 
forward, and had the present tracery, designed by Mr. 
Johnson, inserted, the windows raised to their present 
height, and filled with glass by Hardman. The two 
windows on the west side contain the arms of bene- 
factors, the three on the east side the arms of members 
of the College who have been bishops. The last avail- 
able space was filled with the arms of Dr. Bickersteth, 
who was raised to the See of Ripon in 1857. The 
uncovering of the old fireplace and the handsome 


decoration of alabaster and encaustic tiles, from Mr. 
Bodley's design, which surmounts it, were also due to the 
generosity of Mr. Moon. Mr. Bodley completed the 
woodwork and designed the decoration of the whole 
Hall in 1875. This work was done at the charges of 
W. M. Campion, D.D., and George Pirie, M.A., then 
Tutors of the College. 

During the last years of Dr. King's life the University 
Commission was at work. In November 1851, a com- 
mittee was nominated by the College to answer the 
questions put by the Commissioners, and again in 
January 1853, a fresh committee was constituted to 
examine the Report of the Commissioners and suggest 
such alterations as they might deem necessary in the 
interests of the College. The chief changes made in 
the Statutes given by these Commissioners were that 
the obligation to take orders was relaxed and that the 
Fellows were allowed to marry, a concession not made 
in most colleges until the Statutes of 1882. A Fellow, 
who was a layman and married, could retain his fellow- 
ship for twelve years from M.A. At the same time an 
advantage was still given to an ordained Fellow. A 
Fellow who was in orders, if he remained unmarried, 
retained his fellowship for life. The Statutes must 
have been thought to be beneficial, as many, who were 
already Fellows and therefore had their rights preserved, 
elected to place themselves under the new code. Joshua 
King's last signature in the Conclusion-book was written 
August 17th, 1857. 

In succession to Dr. King, George Phillips, B.D., was 
elected President September 9th, 1857. Born in 1804, 
Mr. Phillips had engaged in teaching and had published 


several mathematical books before he entered Queens' 
College in 1825. He graduated as 8th Wrangler in 
1829, became a Fellow and was almost immediately 
invited to join the tutorial staff. Mr. Phillips early 
avowed the conviction that the studies of the University 
were too restricted in their range, and he more than 
any man, by his influence and by his example, promoted 
the study of Hebrew and of the Semitic languages. It 
was he who discerned the rare abilities of Dr. William 
Wright, brought him from his post at the British 
Museum to Cambridge, procured his election to an 
Honorary and then to a full fellowship at Queens' 
College, and was instrumental in getting the great 
Orientalist appointed first Lord Almoner's Reader and 
then Sir Thomas Adams Professor of Arabic. Never 
was a wise discernment happier in its results, and never 
was a College more richly rewarded for the recognition 
of merit than was Queens' College, when it adopted Dr. 
William Wright. But this is anticipating later events. 
George Phillips resided as Fellow and Tutor 1829-1846. 
It is not a little singular that he accepted the College 
living of Sandon on the same day, October 12th, 1846, on 
which his successor in the Presidentship, Dr. Campion, 
was elected a scholar. It is an open secret that Dr. 
Campion was not only Dr. Phillip's successor but was 
his competitor for the Presidentship in 1857. William 
Magan Campion was 4th Wrangler in 1849, was elected 
Fellow January 12th, 1850, and became almost at once 
joint Tutor and soon sole Tutor of the College. He 
was a vigorous and stimulating teacher. His pupils 
were highly successful, C. B. Clarke was 3rd Wrangler 
in 1856, G. B. Finch Senior Wrangler in 1857, G. M. 


Slesser Senior Wrangler in 1858, E. J. Stone 5th 
Wrangler in 1859. The implication made in Sir G. O. 
Trevelyan's " Cambridge Dionysia," that Queens 1 Senior 
Wranglers were considerably above the average age, 
rests on no basis of fact, so far as the gentlemen are 
concerned to whom presumably reference is made. The 
successes of the College at this time were such, that, in 
allusion to their number and their distinctions, the 
Queens' men were spoken of as "the Forty Thieves." 
The energy and the ability displayed by the Tutor of 
Queens' speedily marked him out as a leader among the 
rising young men of the University. This was shown 
by his election to the first Council of the Senate and 
his appointment to be the first Secretary of that body. 
It is not surprising that, although only eight years had 
elapsed since he had taken his degree, Mr. Campion 
should have been thought of by his contemporaries for 
the vacant Presidentship. But neither is it surprising 
that the older members of the body should have deemed 
Mr. Campion too young for such a post and thought 
that he might bide his time. The counsel of the seniors 
prevailed, and George Phillips was recalled from his 
rectory to assume the Headship of the College. And 
as Dr. Campion lived to fill the Presidential chair, those 
who remember with affection Dr. and Mrs. Phillips as 
well as Dr. Campion may rejoice that the election of 
1857 resulted as it did. 

The first order written by Dr. Phillips as President, 
on the very day of his election, is an odd one. " Agreed 
to give Policeman No. 4 of the Cambridge Police Force 
two pounds for his exertions in extinguishing the fire in 
the College on August 25th, 1857." The fire was caused 


by the carelessness of an old member of the College, 
who was allowed to occupy rooms for a few days at a 
time when the building was almost untenanted. Happily 
the fire was a very trifling affair, which afforded the 
two or three people who were sleeping in College, 
equally with the Policeman, an opportunity of distin- 
guishing themselves. It is a little hard that the active 
officer's name was not preserved. "Policeman No. 4" 
makes the officer as impersonal as the " 20 K " of the 
" Cambridge Dionysia " and with less reason. 

Dr. Phillips was Vice-Chancellor 1861-1862. His 
year of office was memorable, because the Prince of 
Wales was then in residence and because the Duke of 
Devonshire was elected Chancellor on the death of the 
Prince Consort. It was peculiarly suitable that Dr. 
Phillips should install the Duke in his high office, as 
they had graduated together in 1829, when the Duke, 
then Mr. Cavendish, was 2nd Wrangler and 1st Smith's 
Prizeman, and took a First Class in the Classical Tripos. 
On the occasion of the installation a number of distin- 
guished persons, including the present Chancellor, then 
Marquis of Hartington, and the Duke of Argyll, then 
Marquis of Lome, were admitted to Honorary Degrees. 
The Gallery of the Lodge was turned into a banqueting- 
room for the dinner given by the Vice-Chancellor. 
There is an amusing but apocryphal story that during 
the banquet "the architect," or perhaps it should be 
the ghost of the architect, paced the Cloisters wringing 
his hands in fear that the unwonted strain would bring 
down his beautiful building. What a pity that he was 
not accosted and asked his name ! Will there ever be 
such an opportunity of finding out who the architect of 


the Gallery was, and when he built it, and whether he 
put in flat windows on both sides? For the recent 
laying bare of the Gallery for the purpose of replaster- 
ing has shown that on the north — but not apparently 
on the south — the present window in the centre is not 

In 1867 the wooden bridge over the river was rebuilt 
at a cost of £367. 

As has been already stated, the Hall was completed 
and redecorated in 1875. In the same year the east 
front of the College was restored under the superintend- 
ence of Mr. W. M. Fawcett. The object of the archi- 
tect was to reproduce, as nearly as possible, the front as 
shown in Loggan's print. This restoration ultimately 
led to Mr. Fawcett's being entrusted with a very impor- 
tant piece of work. The first intimation that the 
College contemplated building occurs in a resolution of 
December 28th, 1875, which was passed when agriculture 
was highly prosperous. And just at the time of the 
highest agricultural prosperity the last University 
Commission commenced its labours (1878-1882). There 
was no reason to suppose that agriculture would be 
depressed or the incomes of the Colleges diminished. But, 
before the Commissioners had finished their work, there 
was a serious shrinkage in the receipts of the Colleges, 
and the contribution for University purposes, which 
was intended only to divert the surplus revenue of the 
Colleges, has in many cases proved to be a serious 
crippling of the resources necessary for their proper 
efficiency. But in 1875 such things were undreamt of, 
the revenue of the College was abundant, and the 
Society was able in 1876 to invest £5000 in the pur- 


chase of an estate at Fulbourne. In 1880, for the first 
time, the Bursars were authorised to confer with the 
agent on the question of a reduction of rents. How- 
ever, the number of men in residence was steadily 
increasing, and fresh accommodation was needed. The 
increase in numbers was due, at least in part, to what 
the present members of the College know as " the new 
system." In October 1882 a committee, consisting of 
Dr. Campion, Mr. Wright and Mr. Temperley (the two 
Tutors and the Bursar), was appointed to consider 
" whether students might be allowed the option of 
paying a fixed sum in advance in lieu of the present 
College bill."" A scheme for this purpose was devised 
and adopted. All the fixed charges for University and 
College expenses were combined into one sum, which 
students might pay in advance, in place of the system 
of caution-money and a College bill at the end of the 
term. In the end the College also furnished the rooms 
and provided all " College requisites," and the charge for 
the use of these was included in the rent of the rooms. 
This step was certainly a saving of expense to the 
undergraduate, and at the same time ensured that the 
rooms should be kept up to a fair standard of neatness 
and comfort. The plan has proved popular, and has 
been commonly chosen by the men. It leaves them 
freedom. Their meals, except dinner, are taken in 
their own rooms : the cook's bill, the grocer's bill and 
the like are items, the amount of which depends upon 
the means and taste of the individual. And those who 
prefer the full freedom of "the old system" are at 
liberty to choose that plan. The freshman is offered 
a choice between "the old system" and "the new 


system,'" and takes whichever of the two he thinks best 
suited for himself. 

However, new buildings being required, it was found 
possible to provide them by investing certain special 
funds in the building, paying interest at 3 per cent, to the 
funds out of the rent of the rooms. It is right to pay a 
passing tribute to the skill with which the finances 
were managed for this purpose by Mr. Temperley, the 
Bursar. The site chosen was the north part of the 
ground acquired from the Carmelites, which had hitherto 
been used as a kitchen-garden by the President. Upon 
this site the " Friars 1 Building 11 was erected. Mr. Faw- 
cettfs plans were accepted by the College, October 3rd, 
1885. Messrs. Rattee and Kett were invited to tender 
for the work, and the contract with them was signed 
December 15th, 1885. A red-brick building of four 
storeys, with stone dressings and red-tiled roof, and 
containing thirty-two sets of rooms, was erected in 1886. 
The building is of a style taken from the earlier part of 
the College. The criticism is sometimes made that 
the great height and the narrow ends to some extent 
detract from the undoubted merits of this excellent 
building. Yet the block is so far from the older build- 
ings that the difference in height is not much noticed. 
The cost was ^8200. 

This building was hardly completed and tenanted 
before the Chapel was found to be too small. It was 
impossible to enlarge it without encroaching on the 
Library, and the Library itself was overcrowded, and 
stood in need of additional space. The only alternative 
was to build a new Chapel upon another site. This 
was a serious undertaking for a college of no great size, 


suffering severely from agricultural depression. The 
Chapel would yield no revenue, no existing funds could 
be applied to its erection, and clearly it could be built 
only by the free gifts of the members of the College. 
Mainly through Mr. Wright's untiring zeal, subscrip- 
tions of sufficient amount were promised to enable the 
building of a new Chapel to be authorised, June 16th, 

The New Chapel stands on what was the north side 
of the old Walnut Tree Court and parallel to the Old 
Chapel. It forms the division between the Walnut Tree 
Court and the Friars' Buildings, erected in 1886. The 
Chapel was designed by Mr. G. F. Bodley, A.R.A., and 
the work was executed by Messrs. Rattee and Kett. The 
Chapel is in the late English Gothic style to harmonize 
with the older College buildings, and is built of the 
thin bricks used in ancient work, Ancaster stone being 
largely used in the buttresses and facings. The external 
length is 107 feet, the width 34 feet. The proportions 
are lofty, and the eastern gable with its fine seven-light 
window shows well in Queens' Lane. The sides show 
windows of three lights, one in each bay. These 
windows are tall, and the tracery, graceful and charac- 
teristic of the style, is certainly very effective. There are 
two entrances to the Chapel ; over the south doorway 
is finely carved stonework bearing two shields with the 
crest and badge of the College. 

In the Ante-chapel is what appears to be a surplice- 
press of carved oak: in fact, it is a case to contain 
and conceal the hydraulic engines for the organ. An 
oak screen forms a continuous archway across the Ante- 
chapel from doorway to doorway, and constitutes the 


entrance to the Chapel proper. This screen was the 
gift of Mrs. M. and Messrs. T. and J. G. Weller-Poley 
in memory of the members of their family who have 
belonged to the College. On the screen stands the 
organ in a case of a style corresponding to the screen. 
The inner side of the screen forms the back of the west 
stalls. The upper panels on the inner side contain 
alternately the letters "M" and "B," the initials of 
St. Margaret and St. Bernard, the patron saints of the 
College. On the two extreme panels, N. and S., are 
the letters "A. D." and " G. P., 1 ' the initials of 
Andrew Dokett, the first President, and George Phillips, 
the President in whose Mastership the Chapel was 
built. The stalls, with their handsome oak panelling, 
are dignified, and are surmounted by an overhanging 
cove, which forms a continuous canopy. The panelling 
was in 1897 continued from the termination of the 
stalls to the east end of the Chapel, in memory of the 
late President, Dr. Campion. The roof is panelled and 
painted in colours which gain in brilliancy as the east 
end is approached. The general effect aimed at is 
dignity of proportion rather than profusion of orna- 

The east wall has been coloured, and over the hand- 
some doors, which lead from the Chapel to the room 
beyond, are pairs of angels holding shields suspended 
between them. The reredos is painted in rich red and 
gold, and in it is framed a triple picture of the Old 
Cologne School representing the Betrayal, the Resurrec- 
tion and the Appearance to the Eleven. This picture 
(painted by Schoene ?) was in the original Chapel, but 
had been for many years in the President's Lodge. 


In its present position it is most effective and with the 
beautiful reredos, of which it is a part, forms perhaps 
the greatest ornament of the Chapel. The altar-cross, 
candlesticks and vases were given by the Dean, the 
massive candelabra by Dr. Campion, and the eagle- 
lectern by the Rev. A. Wright, in memory of Mr. 
Temperley. Mr.. Wright at the same time gave a 
silver-gilt flagon to complete the Communion plate. 

On the south side are the three windows transferred 
from the Old Chapel, see p. 280. The great east window is 
a memorial erected by friends to Dr. Wm. Wright. This 
window and those on the north side are by Mr. C. E. 
Kempe. The east window has, as the subject of its 
centre light, the Crucifixion with an Entombment 
below. The remaining lights contain single figures. 
The central pair represent our Lord in glory, and the 
Virgin bearing the Child in her arms; the inner pair 
St. Botolph (the saint of the parish in which the College 
is situate, of whose church the first President, Andrew 
Dokett, was Rector) and St. Etheldreda (the patron 
saint of the diocese); the outer pair St. Margaret and 
St. Bernard (the patron saints of the College). Below 
these figures are a series of New Testament scenes from 
the life of our Lord : they are the Annunciation, the 
Salutation, the Adoration of the Magi, the Women at 
the Sepulchre, the Appearance of our Lord to Mary, 
the Supper at Emmaus. It is difficult to imagine a 
richer effect than this east window gives when it is 
lighted up by the morning sun. Those who have seen 
it at such a time will feel that it is not unworthy of its 
position in the Chapel, or of the great scholar whom it 


The windows on the north side by Mr. C. E. Kempe are 
intended to form a series illustrative of English Church 
History. Of the four at present filled with stained 
glass the first is the gift of Dr. Campion and the Rev. 
W. T. Fowke, the second is a memorial to Dr. Phillips, 
the third the gift of Mr. W. Gibson, Fellow, 1869- 
1882, the fourth a memorial to Dr. Campion. The 
figures in the first window are St. Alban, St. Patrick 
and St. Augustine of Canterbury: under them is a 
representation of the Fall. In the second window are 
the Venerable Bede, King Alfred the Great and Arch- 
bishop Theodore: below is Abraham's Sacrifice. The 
third window contains Archbishop Lanfranc with a 
model of his Cathedral, St. Anselm, holding his Cur 
Deus Homo in his hands, and Archbishop Stephen 
Langton with the Magna Charta: Abraham and 
Melchizedek are depicted below. The fourth window 
exhibits Bishop Grosseteste, King Edward I. and 
Wycliffe with his Bible : below is the Brazen Serpent. 
The last window, when filled with stained glass, will 
represent three distinguished members of the College, 
viz., Erasmus, Bishop Fisher and Thomas Fuller, the 
Church historian. The Organ was built by Mr. J. J. 
Binns of Bramley, Leeds. The Prayer-books, bound in 
dark morocco and stamped with the arms of the College, 
are the gift of Mr. E. C. Haynes, Fellow, 1868-1881. 
The whole cost of the Chapel — up to the present time 
some ,£14,000 exclusive of personal gifts — has been 
defrayed by contributions from past and present 
members of the College. 

Dr. Phillips lived to see the Chapel completed. He 
was present at the Dedication by the Bishop of Ely, 


October 13th, 1891, and presided at the dinner given on 
the occasion in the Hall. He was hale and vigorous 
almost to the last. Many people will remember the 
Lent Term 1892, as the Term in which the Dead 
March was played at Great St. Mark's on five successive 
Sundays. The members of the University to whom 
this last tribute was paid were the Duke of Clarence, 
the Duke of Devonshire, Sir George Paget, Professor 
Adams and Dr. Phillips. 

Dr. Phillips' death was followed by the election of 
Dr. Campion, February 23rd, 1892. The event was 
hailed with delight by the past members of the College, 
most of whom had been his pupils, and by many friends 
in the University and elsewhere. Dr. Campion's 
Presidentship, if short, was not uneventful. The 
Chapel was brought several stages nearer completion. 
The Organ was inaugurated September 27th, 1892, and a 
number of old members of the College came up to take 
part in the proceedings. Most of them will remember 
the sermon preached by the President on the occasion. 
During Dr. Campion's Mastership the highest academic 
distinctions were won by Queens' undergraduates. The 
highest honours in Mathematics, Law and Natural 
Science were carried off 1894-1896. The highest 
honours in Classics followed in 1897. But Dr. Campion 
was not spared to rejoice in this last success of the 
College, in which he had resided as Scholar, Fellow, 
President, for fifty-one years. He passed away after a 
very short illness, October 20th, 1896. 

The Fellows then took a step, for which no precedent 
could be found in the annals of the College for three 
hundred years. But whereas the last Heads who had 


been elected from outside, Dr. Chaderton and Dr. 
Tindall, had been appointed by the influence of the 
Crown, the President installed in 1896, Dr. Herbert 
Edward Ryle, Hulsean Professor of Divinity and 
Fellow of King's College, was elected by the free and 
unanimous choice of the Society. The choice won 
universal approbation, and the members of the College 
will desire nothing more earnestly than that their 
present Master may be spared to preside over the royal 
and religious foundation of which he now is Head. 
Before Dr. Ryle's tenancy of the Lodge commenced it 
was restored under the superintendence of Mr. T. D. 
Atkinson. The old fire-places in the Audit-room and 
the Gallery were uncovered ; the panelling, taken out of 
the Hall in Mr. Sedgwick's time, was removed from the 
Servants' hall and put up in the old President's 
Chamber, which was fitted as the President's Study; 
the staircase leading from this room to the Cloister 
Court was reopened; and considerable alterations and 
improvements were made in the internal arrangements 
of the Lodge. Another piece of work, done at the 
same time, and not less important because it obtrudes 
itself neither upon eye nor nose, was the laying down of 
a new system of drainage throughout the College. 

The new gate between the Chapel and the Alms- 
houses, the Friars' Gate as it is to be called, is the most 
recent addition to the College buildings. This was 
completed in April last. Mr. Wright's appointment 
to the office of Vice-President in October was some 
recognition of his splendid services to the College. 

The present year, 1898, is the ninth Jubilee of the 
foundation of the College. In celebration of this event 


the President and Fellows entertained a number of old 
members of the College and representatives of the 
University in the Hall on Thursday, December 8th, 1898. 
The gathering was a great success. All who were 
present will feel stimulated by the past and strength- 
ened for the future. 

The principal benefactions received at a date sub- 
sequent to those given on p. 244 are these. Dr. 
Plumptre, President and Canon of Norwich, in 1789 left 
his MS. Collections for the history of the College and 
pictures as an heirloom to the Lodge. Dr. Milner? 
President and Dean of Carlisle, in 1820 left to the 
Library more than three thousand volumes (see p. 269). 
John Sandys, Fellow, founded a scholarship in 1840. 
Thomas Penny White, Senior Wrangler in 1802, 
Fellow, left a trust-fund to found prizes, one a prize of 
,£30 for the best degree each year, provided the 
recipient be within the first four in the Mathematical 
or Classical Tripos. The accumulations up to £300 
are by the present regulations given to a Senior 
Wrangler, who is also placed in the first division of the 
First Class in the Mathematical Tripos Part II., or a 
scholar who is placed in the first division of the First 
Class in the Classical Tripos, and also gains the first 
Chancellor's Medal. Mrs. Mary King gave in 1880 
£1000 to found prizes in memory of her husband, 
Joshua King, late President. Dr. George Phillips, 
President, gave in 1887 i?1000 to found a scholarship. 
Dr. Phillips also presented a fine picture of himself 
painted by Professor Herkomer. The donors to the new 
Chapel are happily for the most part still alive. Among 
the contributors who have passed away are Dr. Phillips, 


President, Dr. Wm. Wright, Fellow and Professor of 
Arabic, Ernest Temperley, Fellow and Bursar, Thomas 
York, Fellow and Bursar, E. J. Stone, F.R.S., Fellow 
and Radcliffe Observer, J. N. Goren, Senior Fellow 
for many years, Mrs. Margaret Finch, daughter of 
Joshua King and wife of G. B. Finch, late Fellow and 
Honorary Fellow, who with her husband gave £3000, 
and Dr. W. M. Campion, the late President, who gave 
£1000 as a first subscription, and considerable sums in 
gifts and subsequent subscriptions. 

To continue the roll of distinguished members of the 
College since Dr. Godfrey's time, the list includes Philip 
Yorke, K.G., Earl of Hardwicke, Lord Lieutenaut of 
Ireland and Lord High Steward of the University 
(d. 1834) ; Sir Henry Russel, Fellow, Chief Justice of 
Bengal (d. 1836) ; Sir Samuel Egerton Brydges, a great 
authority on English Bibliography (d. 1837); Thomas 
Creevey, a distinguished M.P., Secretary of the Board 
of Control, Treasurer of the Ordnance &c. (d. 1838) ; 
John George Breay, Prebendary of Lichfield (d. 1839) ; 
Dr. William Strong, Archdeacon of Northampton 
(d. 1842) ; Dr. Martin Joseph Naylor, Fellow, author 
of " Discourses on the Evidences of Christianity,'" &c. 
(d. 1843); Charles Callis Western, M.P. for Essex, 
created Lord Western of Bivenhall (d. 1844) ; George 
Henry Law, Fellow, Bishop of Bath and Wells 
(d. 1845) ; John Brown, an eloquent evangelical 
preacher (d. 1845) ; John George Children, scientist 
and chemist (d. 1852) ; Theyre Townsend Smith, 
Hulsean Lecturer, &c. (d. 1852); Dr. Samuel Lee, 
Professor of Arabic, Regius Professor of Hebrew, &c. 
(d. 1852) ; Dr. William Scoresby, the Arctic explorer 


and writer (d. 1857) ; George Cornelius Gorham, 
Fellow, antiquary and ecclesiologist (d. 1857) ; Richard 
Newcome, Archdeacon of Merioneth (d. 1857); John 
Toplis, Fellow, mathematician (d. 1857); Philip Kel- 
Jand, Senior Wrangler in 1834, Fellow, Professor of 
Mathematics at Edinburgh ; Robert Bickersteth, Bishop 
of Ripon (d. 1884); Dr. William Wright, Fellow, 
Professor of Arabic, Old Testament Reviser, the great 
Orientalist (d. 1889); Edward John Stone, F.R.S., 
Fellow, Astronomer Royal at the Cape, Radcliffe 
Observer at Oxford (d. 1897). 

Imperfectly as it has been told, our story draws to an 
end. In a sense it is true to s$y that the history of the 
College may be read in its buildings. There is no 
important epoch that is not written in bricks and 
mortar. There is the first Court to recall the Wars of 
the Roses. Perhaps no more perfect fifteenth-century 
buildings are extant. The massive Gate-Tower, the 
style and arrangement of the blocks to which it leads, 
the Hall and all its appurtenances are eloquent of 
the days of Lancaster and York. It is impossible to 
enter the President's Chamber without thinking of 
Andrew Dokett and John Fisher. The first addition to 
the Lodge, the original Gallery, i.e., the old study, was 
actually built while Erasmus lived and worked in his 
rooms just the breadth of the Cloister Court away. The 
present Gallery passed through its various stages to 
completion, while the Church of England was passing 
through the different phases of Reformation to the 
Elizabethan settlement. The Walnut Tree Buildings 
tell not more plainly of the days of the First James than 
they testify to the prosperity of the College under the rule 


of Bishop Davenant. The taste of the eighteenth 
century still stands embodied in Essex's Building, 
though its marks have been obliterated from the Chapel 
and the Hall. And the nineteenth century may be 
content to take the new Chapel as the test by which it 
shall stand or fall. 

Is there also a character stamped upon the successive 
generations which have been housed within these walls ? 
Will it be true to say of the best and most typical men 
that they have any features in common ? They seem 
to exhibit in common a strong determination that 
change and progress shall always be in continuity with 
the past. They were supporters and advocates of 
reform, but it was a careful and moderate reform, that 
should not break violently with the past. Such was 
Erasmus, such was Bishop Fisher, such were Dr. Wil- 
liam Mey, Sir Thomas Smith, Bishop Davenant, 
Dr. Martin, such even the Parliamentarian Herbert 
Palmer, such, if it be allowed to cite a modern instance, 
Dr. William Wright. There is scarcely a marked 
exception to this rule. There is hardly a prominent 
member of the College who wished to pull down the 
existing fabric of things in the confidence that he could 
build a better, or to see whether perchance he could 
improve upon it. If progressive, they have been dis- 
tinctly moderate ; if conservative, they have been un- 
doubtedly willing to progress. They have been men 
able and willing to look at both sides of a question, to 
appreciate the position and the motives of those who did 
not see face to face with them on all points. If this is 
true, the type is one which the College may well wish to 
preserve and may well strive to produce. Progress but 


not precipitancy, reform but not revolution will not be 
the least valuable lesson that the College can teach to 
men, who are to be called " to serve God in Church and 
State." " And thus," to adopt Fuller's words of fare- 
well to Queens' College, "I take my farewell of this 
foundation, in which I had my education ... in that 
University. Desiring God's blessing to be plentifully 
poured on all the members thereof." 

Floeeat Domus. 



The principal benefactors to the Library have been named in the 
narrative: such are Bishop Davenant (chap, vi.), John Smith 
(chap, vii), Henry James and Thomas Clarke (chap, viii.), David 
Hughes and Isaac Milner (chap. ix.). 

An excellent catalogue of the Library in two volumes was compiled 
for the College in 1826-1827 by the well-known Thomas Hartwell 
Home (see chap. ix. ad fin). To this the reader may be referred 
for full Information about the Library. 

The Library at the time when the catalogue was made contained 
30,000 volumes, Mr. Cooper in his " Memorials of Cambridge " gives 
the number of books as 35,000, at the present time the number is 
quite 40,000. 

There are no MSS. comparable in value to the treasures of the 
Corpus Christi College Library. The Turkish and Persian MSS. 
are, according to Dr. Wright, of no great value. There is a MS. of 
Wycliffe and also a MS. of " Occleve's Poems," valuable for their 

In the MSS. case are placed some black-letter Missals and 
Breviaries, Spongia Erasmi, with the autograph of Erasmus, and 
Loggan's " Cantabrigia Illustrata." 

The catalogue shows the books that are of special value from their 
early date by printing their dates in black letter. In addition to 
the books so distinguished the following may be mentioned : 

Shakespeare (William), Comedies, &c. ; 4th edition folio, London 
[P. 2, 3] . This is in good condition and very valuable. The MS. 
notes in it appear to be of little value. 

There are also some early editions of single plays, see Catalogue, 
p. 964. 

There are early editions of Ben Jonson, Massinger, Beaumont and 


Fletcher, and some early quarto Collections of Miscellaneous Plays 
and Poems. 

The Library contains a considerable collection of Bibles. Perhaps 
the most important are Walton's "Polyglott," viz., "Biblia Sacra 
Polyglotta," ed. Brianus Walton, 6 vols, fol., London 1657 [C. II, 
8-13] , and a fine copy of the Antwerp Polyglott, Montanus' Bible, 
presented by Bishop Chaderton [K. 10, 10-16] . There aretwo early 
printed Vulgates, one Naples, folio, 1476 [C. 4, 11], the other 
Venice, quarto, 1484 [H. 6, 10]. Several of the Hebrew Bibles 
are early, e.g., the edition in 4 vols., folio, Dan. Bomberg, Venice 
1518 [K. 10, 1-4]. 

There are three very interesting volumes of maps and plans of 
cities, with figures in costume of the period [D. 4, 1-3] . 

The Select Discourses of John Smith [H. 7, 35] are of special 
interest to members of the College. Also Sir Thomas Smith's 
"chap book," containing a list of his Greek books. 

There is a very rare edition of " Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius," 
Venice, folio, 1487-1488 [C. 2, 13] and some very old editions of other 
Latin poets, for which see Catalogue, pp. 939, 942, 943, 944. The 
Library is rich in tracts, of which there are seven hundred volumes, 
" upon every subject, theological, moral or political, which has been 
agitated for nearly four centuries." 


In the Hall there are portraits (by Hudson) of Queen Elizabeth 
Widville, Erasmus and Sir Thomas Smith. In the Combination- 
Room there is an old panel-portrait on wood of Elizabeth Widville, 
portraits of Dean Milner (by Harlow), Dr. Campion (by C. E. Brock), 
Dr. Wm. Wright, Edw. Willes, L.L.B. 1745, Simon Patrick, Fellow, 
Bishop of Ely, d. 1707, and Thomas Penny White (by Pickersgill), 
Fellow and Benefactor 1778-1845. 

In the President's Lodge, (1) on' the Staircase are Commander 
John Honing, M.P. for Eye 1597, the Duchess of Rutland and the 
Duchess of Kingston (by Sir Peter Lely), John Ryder, 1697-1775, 
Fellow, Archbishop of Tuam, Joshua King, President 1832-1857 (by 
Sir William Beechey), J. L. Hubbersty, Fellow; (2) in the Gallery, 
George Monck, Duke of Albemarle, Charles II., Oliver Cromwell, 
Hugh Peters, Mr. Fitzwilliam (by Sir Joshua Reynolds), William 
Attwood, admitted 1668, two men unidentified. Sir Thomas Smith, 
Elizabeth Widville, Erasmus (by Holbein), Admiral Caleb Barnes, 
admitted 1675, Sir Henry Bridgeman 1763, George Phillips, President 


1857-1892 (by Prof. H. Herkoraer), Sir George Saville, Bart., M.P. 
1750, Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I., Elizabeth, daughter of 
James I., Henry, son of Jamesl., Elizabeth Widville, Prince Charles, 
afterwards Charles I. ; (3) in the Audit-room, John Davies, D.D., 
President 1717-1731, Thomas Walker, LL.D., Fellow, d. 1764, 
William Sedgwick, President 1731-1760, J. T. Hewit, LL.D., 1753, 
Robert Plumptre, D.D., President 1760-1788, Daniel Wray (by 
George Dance), Benj. Langwith, D.D., Fellow, d. 1743, J. L. Petit, 
M.D., d. 1780, John Hayes, D.D., Fellow, d. 1750, Isaac Milner, 
D.D., President 1788-1820, Dean of Carlisle (by Opie), Henry, Earl 
of Huntingdon, d. 1643, Henry Plumptre, M.D., Fellow, d. 1746, 
Erasmus, John Fisher, D.D., President 1505-1508, Bishop of 
Rochester, Anthony Sparrow, D.D., President 1662-1667, Bishop of 
Exeter and of Norwich, the two Foundresses, Margaret of Anjou and 
Elizabeth Widville, John Davenant, D.D., President 1614-1622, 
Bishop of Salisbury, Henry James, D.D., President 1675-1717, Ralph 
Perkins, D.D., Fellow, d. 1751. 


There is little plate of early date remaining, as the College sent 
almost all the Plate it then possessed to Charles I. in 1642. (See 
p. 162.) The College has, however, at the present time a consider- 
able quantity of Plate. I believe the boast is still true that 
" Queens' is the only College where the Hall is provided with 
silver at all the tables." The collection of silver candlesticks is con- 
siderable and some of them are very handsome and valuable. 

The most interesting piece of Plate is perhaps " The Compton 
Cup" 1637. This is a plain cup, the bowl covered with frosting; it 
has a baluster stem with flame ornamentation on the top member. 
The weight is 46^ oz., the height 12 inches, the depth and dia- 
meter 6 inches. The inscription is "ex dono pranobilis Jacobi 
Domini Compton, honoratissimi Comitis Northamptoniae filii natu 

A good many articles of Plate belonging to Queens' College are 
described in " Old Cambridge Plate," J. E. Foster and T. D. Atkinson 
1896. Such are the Silver Tankard 1683, weight 404 oz., " ex dono 
Mattei Ducie Moreton F. C. 1681" (Foster and Atkinson, 55); the 
silver Tankard 1685, weight 38.15 oz., "ex dono Jacobi Fortrey 
Armigeri" (F. and A. 102); the curious silver Toasting-Fork, 1707 
(F. and A. 103); Cream-jug, 1761 (F. and A. 110); silver Teapot, 


Urn and Stand, 1794 (F. and A. 115) ; silver Spoons (F. and A. 128 
and 129). 

Deserving of mention is the Silver Cup and Cover 1775 with two 
handles ; the finial of the cover is in the form of an acorn. Weight 
36 oz. "Dono dedit Hon. Charles Hervey, 5th son of the Earl of 
Bristol," (F. and A. 133). Also the Ewer and Salver, 1699, given by 
the Hon. W. Villiers, eldest son of the Earl of Jersey, circular, with 
gadrooned edge, floral patterns and scallop shells at inte-rvals. 
Weight of Salver 87 oz., the helmet-shaped Ewer weighs 48 oz. 
(F. and A. 221). The Rose-water Salver and Ewer used by the 
Fellows are handsome but of modern work. 

Interesting Candlesticks are described and illustrated by Messrs. 
Foster and Atkinson, 136, 137, 145, 151, 152. 


"No College in England (says Fuller, "Univ. of Camb." v. 36) 
hath such exchange of coats of arms as this hath." Four of the five 
shields used at different times by the College will be found in 
Atkinson and Clark's " Cambridge, Described and Illustrated." The 
first shield (Atkinson and Clark, p. 374) bears six quarterings ; 
(1) Barry of eight argent and gules = Hungary ; (2) France, a label 
of three points throughout gules = Naples ; (3) Argent, a cross potent 
cantannee with four others plain, or = Jerusalem ; (4) France, abordure 
gules=Anjou; (5) Azure, semee of cross crosslets two barbels hauriant 
endorsed, or=De Barre; (6) Or, on a bend gules three alerions 
displayed argent = Lorraine. These are the quarterings of Queen 
Margaret, without any bordure or difference. The fifth shield 
(Atkinson and Clark, p. 373) was granted in 1575 and consists of the 
arms of Queen Margaret, with the addition of a bordure vert. The 
crest — out of a coronet or an eagle rousant, sable wings of the first- 
was granted at the same time. 

On the whole subject see " The Armorial Ensigns of the University 
and Colleges of Cambridge," by W. St. J. Hope, M.A. ("Camb. 
Antiq. Soc." vol. viii.). 


It is not an easy matter to procure a full list of the members of a 
College who have figured in the Inter-University contests. The 


lists of crews, elevens, &c, are complete, but in many cases the name 
of the College is not given. Perhaps the older members of Queens' 
College can supply names that belong to earlier years 1827-1875. 
The writer will only attempt to give the names of those who have 
competed since his own connexion with the College began. 

In the University Boat of 1880, R. D. Prior rowed seven and 
W. M. Warlow four. G. H. Baker was cox. in 1886 and 1887, T. W. 
Northmore in 1889 and 1890. 

For the Rugby University Football Club (of which the writer has 
been President for the last three years) H. F. S. Adams played full- 
back in 1884 and 1885, and the famous Welsh International C. B. 
Nicholl played forward in 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893. He was Secretary 
in 1891 and captain in 1892. N. C. Fletcher, who is still in residence, 
gained his blue as a forward in 1897 and 1898. 

A. S. Farnfield played in the Association eleven in 1897. 

In the University Athletic Club (of which the writer has the honour 
to be Treasurer) B. L. Parkin was second string in the Three Miles 
1878 ; A. G. Paterson was first string in the Weight 1884, and 
second string 1885 ; S. O. Purves was full blue for the High Jump, 
1885, and divided the event with the Oxford Jumpers ; C. B. Nicholl, 
the footballer, was second string for the Weight, 1892, and full blue 
in 1893. 

In what are known as " the minor contests," F. O. Houseman has 
played in the Hockey Team, H. M. Siddall and E. E. Apthorp in 
the Golf Team ; H. B. Lester, W. C. Sandford, F. G. Scovell and 
J. D. Israel in the Chess Team. , 


Alane, Alexander, 85 
Alienation of College lands, 130, 

Allix, Peter, 222 

Ammonius, Andreas, of Lucca, SI 
Arms of Queens' College, 303 
Associated counties, 158-160 
Ayliner, John, Bp. of London, 126 

Barhet, William, 124-126 

Basset, Joshua, 219 

Bedell, Sir Capel, 141 

Bekensaw, Robert, President, 56-99 

Bridge, the, 239, 242, 286 

Bryan, Richard, 171, 192, 201, 227 

Buckingham, Duke of, 148-149 

Bullock, Henry, 47, 64 

Butts, Dr. Henry, 150, 155 

Byron, Mr., 117 

Campion, W. M., President, 283, 284, 

298, 296 
Carmelite Friars, 13, 14, 15, 87 
Cartwright, Thomas, 112-113 
Cecil, Sir William, Lord Burghley, 

101, 105, 107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 

116, 121 
Chaderton, Bp. William, President, 

108, 110-120, 123 
Chandler, Daniel, 161, 172 
Chapel, 21, 170, 194, 252-255, 279- 

281 ; New Chapel, 289-293 
Charters of King Henry VI., 5, 7, 10 
Cheke, Sir John, 74, 90, 93 

Church of England and the Univer 

sities, 232, 233 
Clark, John, 276 
Clarke, Thomas, 227 
Cloisters, 22-23 
Clunch Building, 109 
Coke, Henry, 167, 194 
Coldham, John, 171-172 
Cole's MSS. quoted, 242, 253, 254 
Collegiate system, 2 
Commissioners of Henry VIII., 90; 

of Edward VI., 92-94 ; of Ma ry 

98; of Elizabeth, 102-103 
Conformity, Certificates of, 132 
Contracts for building first Court, 

Corn rent reserved, 119 
Covenant, the, 171-172 
Crawford, Charles, 247-249 
Cromwell, Oliver, 162, 163 
Cromwell, Sir Henry, 128 
Cromwell, Thomas, 83 

Dale, John, Vice-President, 98-99 
Davenant, John, President, Bp. of 

Salisbury, 134-147 
DavieB, Humphrey, 133, 165 
Davies, John, President, 236-238 
Devereux, Robert, Earl of Essex, 

Dial, 242 

Dinner in Hall, hour of, 274 
Directory of Public Worship, 174. 





Distinguished members of tbe Col- 
lege, 126,150,185, 313, 334-236 

Dokett, Andrew, first President, 4-5, 
9, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35-37 

Dowsing, William, 170 

Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 
10 9, 111, 121 

Edwards, Thomas, 149 
Engagement, the, 183 
Erasmus, Desiderius, 42, 46-56, 74 
Erasmus' Edition of St. Jerome, 52 
Erasmus' Novum Instrument urn, 52- 

Erasmus' Tower, 48 
Erasmus' Walk, 222 
Essex's Building, 239-241 
Essex Chamber, 129 
Ewin, Dr., case of, 250-261 
Expenditure of College in 1546, 91 

Fellows appointed by Parliamenta- 
rians, 175-176 

Fellows ejected by Parliamentarians, 

Ffarman, Thomas, President, 66-68 

Fisher, John, Bp. of Kochester, Pre- 
sident, 42-46, 56-57 

Fletcher, Giles, quoted, 1 

Foundation stone, 17 

Francis. Alban, 219 

Frankelyn, William, President, 68 

Freer, Michael, 172, 191 

Frend, William, case of, 260-262 

Friars" Building, 288 

Fuller, Thomas, Ch. Hist, and Hist, 
of Univ. quoted, 9, 11, 17, 34, 44, 
46, 97, 122, 135, 150, 177, 299 

GALLERY of Lodge, 60-62, 285 
Glynn, Bp., President, 94, 96-97, 99- 

Godfrey, Henry, President, 269-275 
Gorham, G. C, 129, 272-273 
Grey, Hon. John, 246 

Gunning's "Reminiscences," 258,260, 
261, 262, 268 

Hall, the College, 19, 239-242,281- 

Harington, Sir John, quoted, 110, 120 

Hastings, Henry, Earl of Hunting- 
don, 133 

Hausted, Peter, 160, 155, 156 

Heynes, Simon, President, 70, 79-85 

Home, Thomas Hartwell, 274 

Horton, Thomas, 181-189 

Hubbersty, J. L., 263 

Hughes, David, 244 

Hughes, William, 109 

" Ignoramus," by George Ruggle, 

Inter-University contests, 274, 303 

James, Henry, President, 216-226 

"James', Dr., Book," 230-231 

Jegon, John, 130 

Jenyn, John, President, 64-66 

Jesuits, 218 

Jones, Ralph, 114 

"Kidman's " Staircase, 265 
King Charles I., 137, 148, 149, 161 
King Charles II., 161, 212, 215, 218 
King Edward IV., 25, 28 
King George I., 237 
King Henry VI., 5-8, 19 
King Henry VII., 38-39, 45 
King Henry VIII., 65 
King James I., 137-139, 145, 148 
King James II., 212, 216, 218 
King Richard III., 28, 32, 33-35 
King William III., 212, 221, 224 
King, Joshua, President, 276-282 

Lady Joan Burgh, 30 

Lady Margery Roos, 29 

Lady Margaret's Readership in 

Divinity, 43 
Lady Margaret, the, 42-44, 45 



Lambert, John, 64 

Lambeth Articles, 126 

Latin spoken in Hall, 228 

Laud, Abp., 154, 156, 164, 166, 173 

Lee, Samuel, 269 

Library, 252, 255, 269, 273, 300 

Lodge, the President's, 21, 59-63, 

252-253, 294 
Lumley, Harmaduke, Bp. of Lincoln, 


Macadlav, Lord, 269 

Magnum Journale, 24, 25, 147, 210- 

Manchester, Earl of, 166, 169, 171. 

174, 184, 188-192 
Mandell, William, 269-271 
Manners, Roger, Earl of Rutland, 

Mansell, John, President, 148-152 
Martin, Edward, President, 153-198 
Master, Francis, 228-230 
Mere, John, 98 
Mey, Dr. John, 100 
Mey, Dr. William, President, 13-15, 

86-96, 101-103 
Middleton, William, 115 
Milner, Isaac, President, 2 5 6-2 G 9 
Milner's chair, 268 
Milner, Josepb, 257, 268 
Monmouth, Duke of, 215 
Moon, Robert, 281 
Monntaigne, George, Abp. of York, 

134-137, 148 
Mullinger, Mr. J. B., quoted, 12, 31, 

46, 49, 73, 111, 112, 152 

New Chapel, 289-292 
Non-Collegiate system, 1 
Number of members of the College, 
106, 159, 213, 233 

Organ, 253, 292 

Palmer, Herbert, 160, 172-180 
Parker, Abp., 90-92, 101, 105, 109 

Parliamentarian outrages, 166, 168- 

169, 170 
Pascall, Andrew, 48 
Patrick, Bp. Simon, 177, 179-180, 

185-186, 200-206, 212, 222 
Peachell, Dr., 219-220 
Pearson, Bp. John, 156 
Pecocke, Thomas, President, 100-102 
Perne, Andrew, 72, 107 
Phillips, George, President, 282-293, 

Pictures, 301 

Plate, sent to the King, 162, 302 
Plays in Colleges, 123, 132-133, 139 

150, 155 
Plumptre, Henry, 225, 256 
Plumptre, Robert, President, 245- 

256 ; MS. History quoted, 131, 

176, 186, 190, 197, 207, 216, 236, 

239, 245, 251, 252 
Pole, Cardinal, Chancellor, 97 
Pontage lands and rates, 223 
Poor scholars, 63-64, 66, 152 
Preston, John, 136-143 
Puritans in Cambridge, 105, 112, 


Queen Anne, wife of Richard IIL> 

28, 33 
Queen Anne, 224 
Queen Catharine of Aragon, 64 
Queen Elizabeth WidviUe, 12, 25-29 
Queen Elizabeth of York, wife of 

Henry VII., 39 
Queen Elizabeth, 105, 107-108 
Queen Margaret of Anjou, 7-11, 25 
Querela Cantabrigiensis, 168, 178 

Richard, Duke of Gloucester, after- 
wards Richard III., 32 
Ridley, Bp., 93, 96 
Robinson, Bp., 100, 107, 114 
Rockrey, Edmund, 115-116 
Rotherham, Abp., 33 
Royal mandates, 199-200, 211, 216 
Ryle, Dr. H. E., President, 293-295 



Saint Bernard's College, 5-7 

St. John, Oliver, 184-185 

Bancroft, Abp., 184, 301, 221 

Searle, Mr. W. G., History of Queens' 
College, 7, 9, 11, 24, 61, 66, 68, 
87, 99, 165., 168, 170, 172,178, 
186, 197 

Sedgwick, William, President, 238- 

Site of Queens' College, 6, 13-16 

Smith, John, 175-177 

Smith, Sir Thomas, 71-79, 85, 88,90, 
92, 101, 102, 118, 119-120 

Smythies, Ferdinando, 244 

Somerset, Duke of, 221 

Some, Kobert, 107, 114, 125 

Sparrow, Bp. Anthony, 187, 161, 171, 
200-210, 226 

Stapleton, Sir Philip, 164, 167 

Statutes of Elizabeth WIdville, 81 ; 
of Henry VIII., 81; of Ed- 
ward VI., 93 ; of Elizabeth, 108, 
113; of Queen Victoria, 282, 286 

Stoddart, John, 133 

Stokes, John, President, 106-110 

Stourbridge Pair, 94, 209 

Synod of Dort, 145 

Temfekley, Ernest, 288, 291 
Tennison, Abp., 209 

Thomason, T. T., 266 

Tindali, Humphrey, President, 114, 

Townson, Bp. Kobert, 146 
Trotter, Hugh, 39 

Visitation of 1557, 98 

Wallis, John, 158, 175-177, 189 

Walnut-Tree Court, 143-144, 256 

Wasse, Joseph, 234, 238 

Wells, William, President, 211-216 

White Horse Inn, 67 

Whitgift, Abp., 109, 112, 123, 124- 
126, 132 

Wenlock, Sir John, 17 

Whitford, Richard, 46 

Wilberforce, William, 258, 268, 269 

Wilkynson, Thomas, President, 37-40 

Williams, Bp. John, 146 

Willis and Clark, Architectural His- 
tory, quoted, 20, 22, 62, 144, 241, 

Windows in New Chapel, 291-292 

Witchcraft, 128-129 

Women in Colleges, 111-112, 151 

Wren, Matthew, Bp. of Ely, 137-138, 

Wright, Arthur, 289, 291, 294 

Wright, Dr. William, 283, 291, 296 

Printed by Ballantvke, Hanson &• Co. 
London &* Edinburgh 

January 1899 




20 Great Russell Street 

Bloomsbury, London 

TIMES.— "We are glad to welcome the first two volumes of 
what promises to be an excellent series of College Histories. . . . 
Well printed, handy and convenient in form, and bound in the dark 
or light blue of either University, these small volumes have every- 
thing external in their favour. As to their matter, all are to be 
entrusted to competent men, who, if they follow in the steps of the 
first two writers, will produce records full of interest to everybody 
who cares for our old Universities." 

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge 

Two Series of Popular Histories of the Colleges 

To be completed in Twenty-one and Eighteen 
Volumes respectively 

EACH volume will be written by some one officially connected 
with the College of which it treats, or at least by some 
member of that College who is specially qualified for the 
task. It will contain : (i) A History of the College from its 
Foundation ; (2) An Account and History of its Buildings ; (3) 
Notices of the Connection of the College with any Important Social 
or Religious Events ; (4) A List of the Chief Benefactions made to 
the College ; (5) Some Particulars of the Contents of the College 
Library ; (6) An Account of the College Plate, Windows, and other 
Accessories ; (7) A Chapter upon the best known, and other notable 
but less well-known Members of the College. 

Each volume will be produced in crown octavo, in a good clear 
type, and will contain from 200 to 250 pages (except two or three 
volumes, which will be thicker). The illustrations will consist of 
full-page plates, containing reproductions of old views of the 
Colleges and modern views of the buildings, grounds, &c. 

The two Series will extend over a period of about two years, and 
no particular order will be observed in the publication of the 
volumes. The writers' names are given on the opposite page. 

Price Ss. net. per Volume 

These volumes can be ordered through any bookseller or they 
will be sent by the Publisher on receipt of published price together 
with postage. 






Oriel . 


New . 

* Lincoln 
All Souls 

*Corpus Christi 

Christ Church 
*Trinity . 
*St. John's 

Jesus . . 

* Wadham . 
Keble . . 

Peterhouse . 

Clare . . . 


Caius . . . 

Trinity Hall 
*Corpus Christi 

King's . . 
*Queens' . 

St. Catharine's 

Jesus . . . 

Christ's . . 

St. John's . 

Magdalene . 

Trinity . . 

Emmanuel . 

Sidney . . 

*Downing . . 

Selwyn . . 

©xforti Sbtxits 

A. C. Hamilton, M.A. 

H. W. Carless Davis, M.A. 

B. W. Henderson, M.A. 
W. K. Stride, MA. 

D. W. Rannie, M.A. 
Rev. J. R. Magrath, D.D. 
Rev. Hastings Rashdall, M.A. 
Rev. Andrew Clark, M.A. 

C. Grant Robertson, M.A. 
Rev. H. A. Wilson, M.A. 
J. Buchan. 

Rev. T. Fowler, D.D. 
Rev. H. L. Thompson, M.A. 
Rev. H. E. D. Blakiston, M.A. 
Rev. W. H. Hutton, B.D. 

E. G. Hardy, M.A. 
J. Wells, M.A. 

Rev. Douglas Macleane, M.A. 
Rev. C. H. O. Daniel, M.A. 
S. G. Hamilton, M.A. 

D. J. Medley, M.A. 

©ambtfogj &txit% 

Rev. T. A. Walker, LL.D. 

J. R. Wardale, M.A. 

W. S. Hadley, M.A. 

J. Venn, Sc.D., F.R.S. 

H. T. Trevor Jones, M.A. 

Rev. H. P. Stokes, LL.D. 

Rev. A. Austen Leigh, M.A. 

Rev. J. H. Gray, M.A. 

The Lord Bishop of Bristol. 

A. Gray, M.A. 

J. Peile, Litt.D. 

J. Bass Mullinger, M.A. 

W. A. Gill, M.A. 

Rev. A. H. F. Bocghey, M.A., and J. Willis 
Clark, M.A. 

E. S. Shcckburgh, M.A. 

G. M. Edwards, M.A. 
. Rev. H. W. Pettit Stevens, M.A., LL.M. 
. Rev. A. L. Brown, M.A, 
• Ready. 

The Oxford and Cambridge volumes will be 
succeeded by the following : 

University of St. Andrews. 

J. Maitland Anderson, Librarian, Registrar, and 
Secretary of the University. 

University of Glasgow. 

Professor W. Stewart, D.D., Clerk of Senatus. 

University of Aberdeen. 

Robert S. Rait, M.A. Aberdon., Exhibitioner of 
New College, Oxford. 

University of Edinburgh. 

Sir Ludovic J. Grant, Bart., Clerk of Senatus, and 
Professor of Public Law. 

University of Dublin. 

W. Macneile Dixon, Litt.D., Professor of English 
Language and Literature, Mason University 
College, Birmingham. 

University of Wales and its Constituent 

, W. Cadwaladr Davies, Standing Counsel of the 

University of Wales.